STATE BOARD MEETING
State Board Office • 1300 Quince Street SE • Olympia, WA
Fourth Floor • Cascade Conference Room
Study Session:
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
1 to 5 p.m.
Business Meeting:
Thursday, March 24, 2016
8:30 to 11:55 a.m.
Shaunta Hyde, chair ● Elizabeth Chen, vice chair
Jim Bricker ● Anne Fennessy ● Wayne Martin
Larry Brown ● Jay Reich ● Carol Landa-McVicker ● Phyllis Gutierrez-Kenney
Marty Brown, executive director ● Beth Gordon, executive assistant
Statutory Authority: Laws of 1967, Chapter 28B.50 Revised Code of Washington
March 23
Study session agenda
1 p.m.
Welcome and introductions
Shaunta Hyde, chair
1:10 p.m.
ACT report
Jon Lane, ACT president-elect
Discuss
1:20 p.m.
WACTC report
Jim Richardson, WACTC president
Discuss
1:30 p.m.
Allocation model – student achievement initiative and identifying high
demand programs: statewide vs regional gap analysis
Nick Lutes and Darby Kaikkonen
Discuss
Tab 1
2:30 p.m.
Break
2:45 p.m.
2016 supplemental budget and 2017 allocation update
Nick Lutes
Discuss
Tab 2
3:15 p.m.
2017-19 biennial budget development
Nick Lutes
Discuss
Tab 3
5 p.m.
Adjournment
5:30 p.m.
Dinner meeting
Rockfish Grill
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
www.sbctc.edu | March 2016
March 24
Regular business meeting agenda
7:30 a.m.
Breakfast
8 a.m.
Call to order and adoption of agenda
Shaunta Hyde, chair
8:05 a.m.
Approval of consent agenda
Action
a. SBCTC meeting minutes, Feb. 4, 2016
b. Olympic College property acquisition, 1720 Warren Avenue and 914 17th
Street
Resolution 16-03-06
c. Centralia College property acquisition, 717 Centralia College Boulevard
Resolution 16-03-07
Tab 4
8:10 a.m.
Capital budget status update
Wayne Doty
Discuss
Tab 5
8:40 a.m.
Math strategic plan update: math pathways to completion
Bill Moore
Discuss
Tab 6
9:05 a.m.
Enrollment counting workgroup update
Jan Yoshiwara
Discuss
Tab 7
9:25 a.m.
Break
9:40 a.m.
Consideration of accessible technology policy
Resolution 16-03-08
Joe Holliday and Mark Jenkins
Action
Tab 8
10:05 a.m.
Legislative update
Arlen Harris
Discuss
Tab 9
10:25 a.m.
ctcLink project and dashboard update
Mike Scroggins
Discuss
10:45 a.m.
Executive director report
Marty Brown
Discuss
11:05 a.m.
Chair report
Shaunta Hyde
• Appointment of nominating committee for 2016-17 state board chair and Action
vice chair.
11:20 a.m.
Open public comment
Action
Discuss
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
www.sbctc.edu | March 2016
11:30 a.m.
Adjournment
Next meeting: May 4-5, 2016, Skagit Valley College
12 p.m.
All Washington Academic Awards and Reception
South Puget Sound Community College, Student Union Building
3-14-16
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Under RCW 42.30.110, an Executive Session may be held. Action from the Executive Session may be taken, if necessary,
as a result of items discussed in the Executive Session.
PLEASE NOTE: Times above are estimates only. The Board reserves the right to alter the order of the agenda. Reasonable accommodations will
be made for persons with disabilities if requests are made at least seven days in advance. Efforts will be made to accommodate late requests. Please
contact the Executive Director’s Office at (360) 704-4309.
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
www.sbctc.edu | March 2016
Study Session
March 24, 2016
Tab 1
Allocation model – student achievement initiative and
identifying high demand programs: statewide vs regional
gap analysis
Brief description
At the October 2015 State Board meeting, the recommendations of the system-wide allocation task force
were presented to the State Board for consideration. Two recommendations accepted by the State Board
came with requests for additional information. The first request originates from the recommendation to
use programs identified in the joint agency report “A Skilled and Educated Workforce” as the source for
high priority programs, for the purpose of weighting within the allocation model. After a discussion
about the state-wide nature of the joint agency report, the State Board requested additional information
about the possibility of using a regional methodology to identify high priority programs. The second
recommendation that generated the need for a deeper evaluation was the decision to allocate five percent
of the system’s annual appropriation based on performance using the Student Achievement methodology
implemented in fiscal year 2014. The State Board requested more information regarding the impacts of
moving beyond five percent within the new allocation model.
How does this link to the State Board goals and policy focus
Through the allocation of state appropriations, the State Board makes important policy statements and
can assign priorities in the alignment of system effort toward State Board goals and policies. The
transition to a new allocation method is a unique opportunity to examine these priorities and their
influence on the allocation of resources, as well as ensure the proper balance between statewide and
local needs. One of the State Board’s policy goals is to increase the level of state appropriations
distributed based on the performance of students. The Student Achievement Initiative is the system
effort to measure student achievement momentum. Another policy goal is to close skills gaps within the
workforce to ensure workforce training capacity is sufficient for demand and increase awards in highdemand professional-technical programs. Weighting high demand programs within the new allocation
model focuses resources towards this goal, as well as the State Board’s policy goal to adopt an allocation
model that increases student success and ensures access to low-income, basic education, English
language, and academic and job skills students.
Background information and analysis
Student Achievement Initiative
The final recommendations for the development and implementation of a new allocation model included
the requirement to increase the share of the state allocation being distributed based on performance. This
initial step in the development of the model established a range for the system to consider when setting
the new, larger amount: between five and ten percent of total annual appropriations. With a number of
other unresolved details, the final percent for performance was evaluated and considered during a yearlong workgroup in 2014-15. In the end, the recommendation was made to set the allocation share for
performance at five percent of total annual state appropriations.
The method used to allocate performance funding to the districts was developed during the 2013
examination of the Student Achievement Initiative. The examination had multiple outcomes that
Tab 1
modified which milestones were assigned points, the number of points that could be earned, and how
funding for performance was to be distributed.
The final recommendation from the Student Achievement Initiative workgroup examination set the
distribution of district awards based on completions, as well as intermediate progress on the way
towards completion. Available funding awards volume (total completions and total points less
completions) and effectiveness (points per student). Each bucket is assigned a share of available
funding. Volume awards receive 55 percent of funding (10 and 45 percent for completions and total
points less completions, respectively), while effectiveness receives 45 percent.
The Student Achievement Initiative examination did review the distribution using larger pools of
funding, but did not consider how the method would impact district allocations as part of a total rebasing
of existing resources.
Recommendations for the new allocation model provided for increases in the share of allocation
distributed based on performance, using the Student Achievement Initiative distribution method, as part
of the system-wide allocation rebasing. During the second year of analysis, individual district allocations
were analyzed for any unintended biases. An unintended bias was defined as one that allowed
researchers to predict the outcome of a district’s allocation based on changing the control variable.
When holding all elements within the new model constant, increasing the share of allocation dedicated
to performance was the only component that showed a strong correlation between allocation outcome
and district enrollment size. As share of performance allocation increased, it appeared that growth for
smaller districts got increasingly larger. In a rebasing environment, the opposite was also true: as the
share increased, negative impacts on larger districts seemingly got larger. (See Attachment A:
Performance funding scenarios, allocation impacts and various system fiscal measures).
Over the last year, while business officers examined final unresolved questions, the issue of the Student
Achievement Initiative was analyzed more closely. Because the model works in a ‘zero sum’
environment, increasing the share of the allocation dedicated to performance removes resources from
another allocation component within the model, in this case enrollment funding. Further, statistical
analysis made clear that size predicted impact on total allocations for very large and small schools as the
Student Achievement Initiative share increased. (See Attachment B: Performance funding scenarios
and impact on per student funding by college).
The presidents of the system are currently considering new model analysis from the business officers,
which includes draft recommendations to continue to allocate five percent of system funding based on
performance. This recommendation is based on the predictable negative consequences to large districts
if the share based on performance were increased beyond five percent. This outcome would conflict with
the allocation principles to ‘Treat all colleges consistently and impartially’ and ‘Do as little harm as
possible to other colleges.’ The Student Achievement Initiative, including the methods for distributing
awards, is scheduled for review in two years. That review should take into account the overall design of
the new allocation model and the role of performance funding within it.
2
Tab 1
Identifying High Priority Programs: Statewide vs Regional Gap Analysis
In July of 2014, the allocation task force submitted recommendations to WACTC for consideration for a
new allocation model. One of the recommendations was that districts should receive more state funding
for FTE enrollments in courses that are both high cost and a priority for the system. The weighting
factor was designed to encourage districts to offer courses despite their cost and to meet the needs of the
system.
The task of determining which courses to weight was assigned to a WACTC sub-group that met in
2014-15. In November and December of 2014 the group considered a variety of sources and
methodologies for determining high cost high demand courses. For high demand, the following options
were presented:
1) Joint agency report “A Skilled and Educated Workforce”:
The report is produced every two years jointly by the Student Achievement Council, the Workforce
Board, and SBCTC as required under RCW 28B.77.080. The report projects employment demand and
worker supply at (a) the mid-level (jobs that require one year or more of postsecondary education,
Associate degree or education leading to an apprenticeship), (b) the baccalaureate level, and (c) the
graduate level. The report focuses on projected workforce needs for the period of 2018-2023. The
analysis within the report measures the skills gap – the difference between employer demand and total
supply of students leaving college who meet the education levels demonstrated by current workers in
their jobs. The W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research was contracted to assess the report’s
methodology and provide a set of recommendations for improving the supply and demand analysis.
2) EMSI Statewide Gap Analysis:
This study would analyze all current community college programs by economic region. For each region,
they would align community college program completers with the jobs they are serving. This would
identify where the community colleges are underserving job demand within each economic region. As
described, the study focuses on workforce programs, associate degree or less, and would also need to
take into account our contribution to baccalaureate demand. EMSI uses the same public sources
(including Bureau of Labor Statistics) as the joint report. It also pulls from current job listings. They
have developed analytical methods and a regional-level iterative statistical model that are proprietary.
Subsequent reports would not be able to use the same methodology unless done by EMSI.
A cost estimate for a regional analysis as of March 2016 is approximately $180,000. The study would
have to be updated periodically to keep current in the allocation model, at an additional cost each
subsequent iteration.
3) Wage Record Data Matches for Graduate Earnings
For workforce programs in our system, Unemployment Insurance (UI) wage records could be used to
establish high wage programs as high demand. Higher wage program Classification of Instructional
Programs (CIPS) can be regionalized and also made college specific for all workforce programs,
mapping to specific course CIPS. Similar to the regional demand analysis, STEM courses would need to
also be taken into account to weight contribution to baccalaureate degrees. Programs considered higher
wage could be those with earnings with a target rate such as 50 percent or higher for all graduates, or the
3
Tab 1
top third of a college’s top wage programs. This approach reinforces higher wage program offerings,
and introduces student income as a criteria of high demand.
The final recommendation of the allocation task force subcommittee was to use the state’s joint report,
“A Skilled and Educated Workforce” and STEM courses as compiled by districts and reported through
Results Washington as the source for high priority programs. High cost programs, as evaluated by a high
cost workgroup in 2014-15, showed significant overlap with the high priority and STEM list and
therefore reinforced the list as a good representation of high cost, high priority programs for the system.
Potential questions
•
•
•
Does the statewide gap analysis as produced by the report “A Skilled and Educated Workforce: 2015
Update” meet the policy goal of identifying and incentivizing high demand programs within the
allocation model? If so, how do we recognize regional needs?
Would using a proprietary data source (EMSI) for identifying high demand programs at the regional
level meet the policy goal identifying and incentivizing high demand programs within the allocation
model? Further, would the benefit outweigh the cost, repeatability, and time investment for
implementation?
Should five percent of system allocations be based on performance? Or should this be increased to
ten percent?
Recommendation/preferred result
The goal is that State Board members will understand the methodology behind the statewide gap
analysis, as well as the pros and cons of a statewide versus a regional method for identifying high
demand programs to be used as weighting in the new allocation model. Provide recommendations to
staff for next steps.
Policy manual change Yes ☐ No ☒
Prepared by: Darby Kaikkonen, policy research director
360-704-1019, dkaikkonen@sbctc.edu
Nick Lutes, operating budget director
360-704-1023, nlutes@sbctc.edu
4
Tab 1 Attachment A
Performance funding scenarios, allocation impacts and various system measures
As the level of funding for performance increases the impact to funding for enrollments is a reduction in dollars available per targeted enrollment. Further, as the
percentage increases the spread between the highest and lowest funded college on a $/enrollment basis grows from under $1,000 when set at five percent to over
$3,400 when set at 25 percent. The severity of the impacts to districts at the high and low ends of enrollment ranking can be seen growing as the size of performance
increases.
Performance $ and % change from 5.0% level
$
DEAB Allocation pool $ total and % change from 5% $
Weighted enrollment $ per and % chng from 5%
Non-weighted enrollment $ per and % chng from 5%
Highest $ per FTE
Lowest $ per FTE
Rank of three
year actual
enrollments (1 =
largest)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
4,684,626
481,517,166
$4,304
$3,311
$5,704
$4,024
Total Modeled SQ
Perf Allocation
-87%
7%
7%
7%
-4%
1%
Total
Change
from
Current
Allocation
$ 35,735,057
$ 450,466,742
$4,027
$3,097
$5,962
$3,986
Total
Change
Total Modeled from SQ Perf
Allocation
Allocation
Performance = 0.656%
13168
12706
8285
7815
5886
5822
5329
5310
5050
4966
4821
4777
4717
3955
3903
3680
3626
3550
3524
2898
2845
2825
2562
2481
2079
1880
1857
1641
1601
1452
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
58,033,355
52,544,851
30,243,071
28,573,683
24,893,546
20,336,244
20,690,379
25,110,097
21,580,937
20,587,291
20,695,836
20,555,426
19,981,480
17,393,225
17,149,973
16,342,520
18,090,867
15,344,081
16,640,166
13,148,901
12,817,845
13,917,304
11,687,246
11,805,582
10,652,062
8,706,942
9,864,555
8,816,792
8,602,825
8,294,712
(3,408,278)
(1,840,473)
622,003
75,396
2,668,282
555,684
1,664,830
1,571,824
(1,365,435)
(860,291)
(1,994,795)
740,535
1,055,471
306,978
(621,355)
(616,400)
1,120,096
(297,658)
1,647,808
(1,027,593)
509,205
907,477
(24,292)
387,987
205,745
(718,590)
231,673
(352,010)
(862,981)
(280,841)
0.0% $
0.0% $
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total Modeled
Allocation
Performance = 5.0%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
57,390,054
51,684,199
29,828,359
28,299,544
24,532,896
20,410,905
20,610,851
25,309,549
21,463,857
20,647,768
20,601,901
20,246,925
19,889,373
17,323,493
17,207,798
16,310,168
17,907,728
15,549,615
16,555,423
13,240,217
13,033,901
14,104,770
11,934,656
12,102,914
10,827,360
9,080,552
10,127,565
9,242,026
8,967,610
8,669,821
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
(643,301)
(860,652)
(414,712)
(274,139)
(360,650)
74,661
(79,528)
199,452
(117,080)
60,477
(93,935)
(308,501)
(92,107)
(69,732)
57,825
(32,352)
(183,139)
205,534
(84,743)
91,316
216,056
187,466
247,410
297,332
175,298
373,610
263,010
425,234
364,785
375,109
71,470,100
414,731,692
$3,707
$2,852
$6,259
$3,930
100% $
-7.9% $
-7.9%
-7.9%
5.0%
-1.4%
Total Change
from SQ Perf
Allocation
Total Modeled
Allocation
Performance = 10.0%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
56,649,697
50,693,697
29,351,077
27,984,045
24,117,834
20,496,831
20,519,323
25,539,092
21,329,114
20,717,370
20,493,793
19,891,879
19,783,371
17,243,240
17,274,349
16,272,937
17,696,957
15,786,156
16,457,894
13,345,312
13,282,550
14,320,518
12,219,393
12,445,103
11,029,103
9,510,530
10,430,255
9,731,414
9,387,430
9,101,521
$ (1,383,658)
$ (1,851,154)
$ (891,994)
$ (589,638)
$ (775,712)
$ 160,587
$ (171,056)
$ 428,995
$ (251,823)
$ 130,079
$ (202,043)
$ (663,547)
$ (198,109)
$ (149,985)
$ 124,376
$ (69,583)
$ (393,910)
$ 442,075
$ (182,272)
$ 196,411
$ 464,705
$ 403,214
$ 532,147
$ 639,521
$ 377,041
$ 803,588
$ 565,700
$ 914,622
$ 784,605
$ 806,809
178,675,250
307,526,542
$2,749
$2,115
$7,150
$3,748
400.0%
-31.7%
-31.7%
-31.7%
19.9%
-6.0%
Total Change
from SQ Perf
Allocation
Performance = 25.0%
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
54,428,626
47,722,195
27,919,235
27,037,549
22,872,645
20,754,607
20,244,740
26,227,722
20,924,886
20,926,178
20,169,470
18,826,743
19,465,361
17,002,482
17,474,000
16,161,242
17,064,649
16,495,784
16,165,309
13,660,595
14,028,504
14,967,764
13,073,607
13,471,677
11,634,341
10,800,462
11,338,328
11,199,578
10,646,889
10,396,624
$ (3,604,729)
$ (4,822,656)
$ (2,323,836)
$ (1,536,134)
$ (2,020,901)
$ 418,363
$ (445,639)
$ 1,117,625
$ (656,051)
$ 338,887
$ (526,366)
$ (1,728,683)
$ (516,119)
$ (390,743)
$ 324,027
$ (181,278)
$ (1,026,218)
$ 1,151,703
$ (474,857)
$ 511,694
$ 1,210,659
$ 1,050,460
$ 1,386,361
$ 1,666,095
$ 982,279
$ 2,093,520
$ 1,473,773
$ 2,382,786
$ 2,044,064
$ 2,101,912
Tab 1 Attachment B
Performance funding scenarios and impact on per student funding by
college
To increase the amount of funding available for performance distribution by five percent, to ten
percent, requires an eight percent reduction in funding available for DEAB enrollments and the
amount provided for each weighted, priority enrollment. When the share is increased to 25
percent, the impact to enrollment funding is -32 percent. As seen below in Chart 1, the amount
available to the District Enrollment Allocation Base (DEAB) enrollment levels and weighting for
priority enrollments (represent by squares and triangles), on a per student basis, gets smaller and
smaller. Also demonstrated in the chart is the disproportionate impact to smaller schools due to
the current non-volume variable in the SAI methodology (i.e., share of points per student).
Chart 1 – (Note: Multi-college districts are disaggregated based on the college share of 2015 actual enrollments for their district)
Identifying High Demand
Programs for Weighting in the
Allocation Model
Statewide vs Regional Gap Analysis
State Board Meeting: March 2016
Presented by Darby Kaikkonen, Director of Policy Research
Overview of Discussion
• Brief summary of WACTC recommendation to use
statewide joint report for identifying high demand
programs
• Methodology of the statewide gap analysis and
resulting high demand programs
• Proposed methodology of a regional gap analysis
• Benefits and challenges of each approach
2
Statewide Gap Analysis Methodology: “A Skilled and
Educated Workforce”
• Report uses WA state employment data, actual educational
levels in the current workforce (ACS of U.S. Census), and
number of graduates at varying education levels
• Occupations are crosswalked to education programs to
determine demand at each level
• Gap analysis compares supply of potential workers
(graduates) at each education level against projected
demand (job openings) for workers trained at those levels.
• Result is a listing of occupations that are in demand at each
education level
3
Annual Aggregate Supply and Demand Gaps
2018-2023
Mid- Level
10,019 45,732
35,713
Bachelor's
28,295
5,853 34,148
10,806 5,674 16,480
Graduate
-
10,000
20,000
Supply
30,000
40,000
50,000
Gap
4
High Demand Mid-Level Occupations in 2015 Joint Report
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Service Occupations
Production and Trades
Business, Management, and Sales
*Selected Health occupations
Computer science
Human and Protective Services
Educators
Media, Design, and Communications
Research, Science, and Technical
*A separate gap analysis and for healthcare specific occupations as well
as research from the Health Workforce Council supported the inclusion of
selected occupations to include Nursing, which does not currently have a
gap
5
Regional Gap Analysis Methodology: EMSI Proposal
• Develop a crosswalk between annual openings for an
occupation and the number of completions for an education
program CIP code
• Calculate number of regional annual job openings for
occupations at different education levels using BLS data to
adjust openings relevant to the long certificate and
associate degree only.
• Conduct gap analysis between the average annual
openings and average annual completers for each
occupation for the 12 Workforce Development Areas in the
state of Washington, at a cost of approximately $180,000.
6
Statewide Gap Analysis Benefits
• Methodology has been consistent (on 3rd cycle) and vetted by
a coordinated committee from WSAC, the WTECB, and
SBCTC
• Identifies programming to meet the needs of the state of
Washington, and aligns with other statewide goals
• Results can be applied to all colleges, are not under the
influence of individual colleges, thereby meeting the
allocation system design principle of treating all colleges
consistently and impartially.
• No cost to implement the results within the allocation model
in the next year
7
Statewide Gap Analysis Challenges
• Does not take regional employment demand and
individual college degree production into account.
• Potential concern for border state colleges.
• Occupation specific concerns in the area of health
care creates uncertainly within the gap analysis and
industry needs.
8
Regional Gap Analysis by EMSI Benefits
• Would provide a high demand list that is more targeted
to an individual college’s region
• Concept behind the methodology is similar to the
statewide gap analysis conducted through the joint
report
• EMSI are economic analysis experts and their
tools/methodology are currently being utilized by
colleges for labor market analysis
9
Regional Gap Analysis by EMSI Challenges
• Results can be influenced by colleges as they work
collaboratively with EMSI to identify their occupation to
program needs
• Criteria for minimum FTE levels would need to be
established to avoid too much FTE being weighted in
the model
• Time
• Cost
10
Study Session
March 23, 2016
Tab 2
2016 Supplemental budget and 2017 allocation update
Brief description
As of this writing, the Legislature has yet to pass the 2016 supplemental operating budget. In upcoming
meetings, the State Board will adopt the initial fiscal year 2017 operating budget allocations to colleges,
as well as the tuition and fee schedule for the coming academic year. At this March meeting, staff will
provide context and information relevant to those upcoming decisions. The State Board will provide
direction to staff on the following topics for fiscal year 2017: methodologies to be used in the
allocations; establishing the tuition schedule for resident and non-resident students; setting enrollment
rules used in relationship to allocations; and innovation account funding.
How does this link to the System Direction, Mission Study and Policy Focus
The process for determining the annual allocation of the state appropriation is an opportunity for the
State Board to ensure that the goals and principles stated in the System Direction and Mission Study are
reflected in college allocations.
Background information and analysis
Current 2016 supplemental budget proposals by the Legislature provide modest increases in policy level
investments for the community and technical college system. Overall, 2016 supplemental budget plans
increase state appropriations by less than one percent, with the House proposal appropriating $710.3
million and the Senate proposal appropriating $705.8 million in fiscal year 2017. Both budgets include a
funding plan to settle the Moore v. HCA lawsuit. This settlement will require a one-time payment of
$13.4 million from colleges’ local funds. Absent supplemental changes in the special session, the
underlying appropriations for fiscal year 2017 increase system funding by $20.4 million, for a total state
appropriation of $703.3 million. The following sections provide draft, detail information on the elements
to be used in the allocation of 2017 state appropriations.
2017 Allocations
Methodologies
(See Attachment A – FY 2017 Budget Allocation and Tuition Schedule Decision Points.)
The State Board will approve the fiscal year 2017 allocation of state appropriations to the colleges
during their final meetings of the academic year. Fiscal year 2017 is a transition year between allocation
methodologies. The transition between models will rebase district allocations. The impact of the
allocation rebase will be expressed as the difference between the 2017 district allocation, developed
using the new model, and the 2017 allocation developed using the old model. In the transition year, three
quarters of the rebase impact (positive or negative) will be adjusted out of the district allocation
generated by the new model. In fiscal years 2018 and 2019, one-half and one-quarter of the first year
rebase impact will be added to the new model outcomes for that fiscal year, and will, respectively, be
adjusted out of the district allocation generated by the new model. This process will be detailed in the
allocation development process for fiscal years 2018 and 2019. Fiscal year 2020 will be the first full
year of new model implementation. The recommended methodologies that will be used for the
distribution of various fiscal year 2017 budget changes are contained in Attachment A – FY 2017
Budget Allocation and Tuition Schedule Decision Points. Major policy allocations in fiscal year 2017
include: funding for the 2017 scheduled 1.8 percent employee COLA; increase funding for the Re-
Tab 2
fabrication Wing Training Program at the WATR Center; and backfill from state funds to recognize the
2017 upper division tuition reduction.
Finally, the level of state appropriations provided for the Student Achievement Initiative (SAI) was not
proposed to increase in the 2016 supplemental budget. Performance funding policy is changing in fiscal
year 2017 with implementation of the new allocation model. When approved, the new model will set
aside the current annual appropriation of $5.25 million, plus an additional $30.51 million from base
appropriations, to allocate five percent of annual state appropriations for distribution using SAI. This
represents a shift from the old model method that only distributed a portion of the proviso, $4.7 million,
representing approximately 0.8 percent of allocated resources.
Safe Harbor – Provisos and Earmarks
The new allocation methodology will employ the concept of Safe Harbor (see Attachment B – FY 2017
Safe Harbor – Policy & List of Programs) for certain appropriations provided by the Legislature. Safe
Harbor is a designation that withholds the value of the identified program from distribution by the new
allocation model. Programs in Safe Harbor will have separate allocation requirements designated to
achieve the policy goals (see Attachment C – FY 2017 State Enrollment Rules). The criterion used
for determining when a specific appropriation is considered in Safe Harbor is currently under review by
the community and technical college system. Generally, new, targeted appropriations will have four
years of Safe Harbor prior to being distributed by the new model.
Enrollment Rules
A major element of the new allocation model is the annual redistribution of target enrollments based on
the relationship between actual and target enrollments, using a three year average. Enrollment rules are
established to provide guidelines for how elements of enrollment are used within the model (see
Attachment C – FY 2017 State Enrollment Rules).
The draft enrollment rules provide descriptions of:
• Types of enrollments to be allocated
• Methods for establishing district share of the District Enrollment Allocation Base (DEAB)
• Enrollments that will be identified as priority and eligible for additional per student funding
(weighting)
• Allocation methods for enrollments held in Safe Harbor
2017 Tuition
(See Attachment A – FY 2017 Budget Allocation and Tuition Schedule Decision Points and
Attachment D – 2017 Draft Lower and Upper Division Tuition Summaries.)
Tuition for the 2016-17 academic year will change due to statutory requirements. The building fee
portion of tuition schedules is required to increase at a rate no less than annual inflation for 2015, or
approximately 1.4 percent. The building fee increase will be applied to the lower- and upper-division
tuition schedules for residents and non-residents. This is the only required change to the resident, lower
division tuition schedule.
More substantial and related to the tuition reduction backfill being allocated, is the statutorily required
reduction to the system’s upper division tuition rate. Used for applied baccalaureate programs, the 2017
2
Tab 2
rate is required to be 20 percent lower than the 2015 rate. The rate was reduced by five percent for 2016.
The incremental change required to meet the 20 percent requirement is a 15.7 percent reduction to 2016
tuition levels.
Innovation account funding
Authorized in the 2011 legislative session, the State Board is authorized to dedicate up to three percent
of operating fee revenues (a portion of tuition) to the community and technical college Innovation
Account. The system is currently engaged in the replacement of its legacy computer systems with a new
enterprise reporting program named ctcLink. The SBCTC uses revenues generated by the Innovation
Account set-aside to pay for project-related costs and debt service. To provide sufficient revenue for the
Innovation Account to cover 2017 expenditure projections related to ctcLink, three percent of operating
fee collections is recommended to continue to be dedicated to the account.
Potential questions
•
•
Do the proposed fiscal year 2017 initial allocation methodologies, including use of Safe Harbor,
align with the SBCTC System Direction and Mission Study recommendations?
Are the proposed recommendations for the fiscal year 2017 enrollment rules consistent with
the State Board’s goals of maintaining access and student success?
Recommendation/preferred result
The State Board will provide direction to staff regarding the development of the 2017 initial allocation
to colleges. At the May or June State Board meeting, board members will be asked to review and
approve the final fiscal year 2017 initial allocation, the 2017 tuition schedules, the Safe Harbor list, and
the enrollment rules.
Policy manual change Yes ☐ No ☒
Prepared by: Nick Lutes, operating budget director
(360) 704-1023, nlutes@sbctc.edu
3
TAB 2
Attachment A
FY 2017 DRAFT Budget Allocation and Tuition Decision Points
Operating Budget Allocation Methodologies
$ Impact
Below are individual, incremental budget adjustments occurring between fiscal years 2016 and 2017.
Because each item will be distributed in two models, the budget item descriptions reflect draft
distribution methods to be used for both model environments. These methods are being reviewed by
the system business officers and presidents through their professional associations. Each item displays
pertinent information regarding the policy, allocation impact, the methods employed in old and new
models, and any changes being considered in the 2016 supplemental budget process.
 Performance Funding - Student Achievement Initiative
$35.7 million
The underlying 2015-17 biennial budget contains a proviso for $5.25 million in annual
appropriations to fund the Student Achievement Initiative (SAI). Current legislative supplemental
budget proposals maintain this funding. If current appropriation remains, it will be combined with
$30.45 million from the system’s base appropriation to make a performance funding pool of $35.7
million, equal to five percent of the system’s total state appropriation.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: The variable portion of the proviso ($4.7 million) will be removed
from FY2016 base and re-distributed.
• New model distribution: Allocate an amount equal to five percent of system appropriations
(currently $35.7 million) through a performance funding pool.
• Both the old method and new model: Distribute performance funding to colleges based on
their share of SAI points in three categories: Total SAI Points (less completion points)
generated (45%); Total Completions Points generated (10%); and SAI Points per Student
(45%).
 Tuition Reduction Backfill
$355,000
The College Affordability Act established that the 2017 operating fee for the system’s’ applied
baccalaureate programs (upper division schedule) must be 20 percent lower than the 2015 level.
The first step in the policy occurred in 2016 with a five percent reduction in 2016 tuition. The
second step will occur in 2017, with a 16 percent decrease in the upper division operating fee. In
the enacted biennial budget, the system has been appropriated $355,000 in state funds to offset
lost tuition revenue caused by the operating fee decrease. The Senate’s 2016 supplemental
budget provides an additional $479,000 in state appropriations to recognize larger than budgeted
impacts for the tuition reduction.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: The appropriation is provisoed and the final value will be allocated
based on district share of enrollments in upper division courses in the 2015 academic year.
• New model distribution: The final appropriation value will be in Safe Harbor; the final value
will be allocated based on district share of enrollments in upper division courses in the 2015
academic year.
Prepared by the SBCTC Operating Budget Office
-1-
March 9, 2016
TAB 2
Attachment A
 Employee Cost of Living Adjustments
$14.063 million
The 2015-17 biennial budget provides authority in FY 2017 for at least a 1.36 percent, and up to a
1.8 percent cost of living adjustment for system faculty and technical college classified staff. Also, a
1.8 percent COLA is authorized for classified and exempt employees. To recognize increased
expenditures caused by COLAs, the enacted budget provides $8.94 million in state funding. The
allocation for the COLA includes state appropriations provided to backfill the impact of salary
increases on tuition expenditures. COLAs are provided $5.124 million from the $5.8 million
appropriated for compensation backfill in 2015-.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: Distribute COLA funding based on employee groups funded. Use
the district share of faculty, classified and exempt employee salary expenditures (as
appropriate) to allocate COLA funding.
• New model distribution: PROPOSED: Increase the amount of system appropriations
distributed by the model by $14.063 million.
 Employee Health Insurance Contributions
$5.372 million
The 2017 monthly contribution rate for employee health benefits is schedule to increase by $54
per employee. The impact of the increase on tuition expenditures is provided $667,000 from the
$5.8 million provided to backfill the impact of the 2015-17 compensation policy on tuition revenue.
The Senate’s 2016 supplemental budget does contain a $12 per employee reduction to the
scheduled increase.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: Distribute health contribution funding based on district share of
state and tuition health benefit expenditures.
• New model distribution: PROPOSED: Increase the amount of system appropriations
distributed by the model by $5.372 million.
 Employee Pension Contributions
$17 thousand
The funding level for FY 2017 employee pension contributions rate is $17,000 greater than FY 2016.
The allocation of the increase will be distributed based on district share of pension expenditures in
FY 2015.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: Distribute pension funding based on district share of state and
tuition pension expenditures.
• New model distribution: PROPOSED: Increase the amount of system appropriations
distributed by the model by $17,000.
Prepared by the SBCTC Operating Budget Office
-2-
March 9, 2016
TAB 2
Attachment A
 Support Services - MESA Funding
$410,000
The underlying 2017 appropriations contain $410,000 for six MESA program pilot projects and
program oversight. Current supplemental legislative proposals contain $450,000 to partially fund
the Board’s request to expanded pilots located at Columbia Basin, Edmonds, Highline, Olympic,
Seattle Central and Yakima Valley Community Colleges. If the new appropriations are added to the
existing proviso, pilot sites will receive $125,000 annually. Additionally, $110,000 would be
available to support program research and oversight.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: Maintain current pilot project funding levels; IF FUNDED, increase
district pilot site allocations by $66,430; increase SBCTC/UW program oversight by $51,420.
• New model distribution: Place MESA funding in Safe Harbor ongoing; Maintain current
pilot project funding levels; IF FUNDED in final budget, increase district pilot site allocations
by $66,430 (to $125,000); increase SBCTC program oversight by $51,420 (to $110,000).
 Alternative Capital Financing – Debt Service payments
$8.774 million
The underlying 2017 appropriations contain $8.8 million from the system building fee revenue to
pay for facilities financed using Certificates of Participation (COPs). The allocations to the districts
are reset each fiscal year to reflect the scheduled debt service payment for their facility. The
current House 2016 supplemental budget contains an additional $4.65 million in building fee
appropriations to be used for debt service payments related to COPs proposed for new buildings at
Whatcom and Edmonds Community Colleges.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: Remove 2016 allocation and re-allocate to four existing districts
based on anticipated 2017 debt service payment; IF FUNDED, allocate 2016 supplemental
funding to impacted districts according the final debt service schedule.
• New model distribution: Place Alternative Capital Financing funding in Safe Harbor
ongoing; Remove 2016 allocation and re-allocate to four existing districts based on
anticipated 2017 debt service payment; IF FUNDED, allocate 2016 supplemental funding to
impacted districts according the final debt service schedule.
 Specific 2016 Supplemental Legislative Investments
$257,000
The House supplemental proposals contain two smaller, specific investments to support targeted
concepts. The current proposals include a Wildfire Prevention Program (H) and a Civics
Engagement Program (H). If enacted each item would be governed by an appropriations act
proviso.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: IF FUNDED, allocate each enacted, specific appropriation as
directed by the legislative proviso.
• New model distribution: IF FUNDED, place the specific new funding in Safe Harbor ongoing;
allocate each enacted, specific appropriation as directed by the legislative proviso.
Prepared by the SBCTC Operating Budget Office
-3-
March 9, 2016
TAB 2
Attachment A
 Maintenance and Operations & Leases and Assessments
$216,000
The 2015-17 biennial budget includes appropriations in FY 2017 for Maintenance and Operation
costs, to reflect the schedule completions of college capital projects. Further, additional
appropriations are provided in FY 2017 for changes in campus leases and various local
assessments. The allocation adjustments are based on information reported by districts during the
summer of 2014.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: M&O – Allocate to Future Allocations; allocate to colleges when
new facilities receive “occupancy permits.” Leases and Assessments based on the leases
and assessment survey completed by districts in the summer of 2014.
• New model distribution: Place M&O, Leases, and Assessment in Safe Harbor; M&O –
Allocate to Future Allocations; allocate to colleges when new facilities receive “occupancy
permits.” Leases and Assessments based on the leases and assessment survey completed by
districts in the summer of 2014.
 Students of Color
$1 million
The basis for distribution of this earmarked allocation requires refreshing to reflect 2015 head
count data in district share of students of color.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: Maintain earmark status and update distribution based on two
year average district share of student of color enrollment (head count).
• New model distribution: Place Students of Color in Safe Harbor ongoing; update
distribution based on two year average district share of student of color enrollment (head
count).
 Disability Accommodations
$1.17 million
The basis for distribution of this earmarked allocation requires refreshing to reflect 2015 head
count data in district share of students of color.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: Maintain earmark status and update distribution based on two
year average district share of students with disabilities enrollment (head count).
• New model distribution: Place Disability Accommodations earmark in Safe Harbor ongoing;
update distribution based on two year average district share of students with disabilities
enrollment (head count).
Prepared by the SBCTC Operating Budget Office
-4-
March 9, 2016
TAB 2
Attachment A
 Basic Skills Enhancement
$3.47 million
The basis for distribution of this earmarked allocation is changing during the transition year. The
process of fiscal enhancement for Basic Education for Adult enrollments will be done with Priority
Weighting in the new model. Beginning in 2017, a portion of each district’s enrollment allocation
target (DEAB) will be provided with 30 percent more funding than non-priority enrollments. This
additional ‘weighting’ in per student funding replaces the need for a separate earmark dedicated
to the mission.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: Maintain earmark status and distribution based on the most
recent four quarter average Basic Education for Adult enrollments (summer through spring
of academic year 2014-15).
• New model distribution: Remove earmark and include $3,469,574 for distribution by the
model.
 Bates Rebase Phase Two
$ net zero
FY 2017 represents year two of a four year rebasing of the Bates Technical College enrollment
target and state allocation. In FY 2017 the Bates district enrollment allocation target will change by
227 FTE, equaling a loss in allocation of approximately $781,000. The same amount of FTE will be
redistributed back to eligible districts.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: Shift 227 enrollment allocation base from Bates Technical College
target to district targets who overenrolled in FY 2015. Take $3,439 per FTE shifted from
Bates and distribute to districts receiving the rebase.
• New model distribution: Set the Bates district enrollment allocation base at level 227 FTE
lower than the 2016 level. The model will shift resources accordingly to three year overenrollment comparisons.
 Supplemental Retiree Payments
$355,000
The 2016 estimated supplemental retiree payments will exceed the allocated budget of $645,000
by approximately $85,000 (for a total expenditure of $730,000). In 2017, expenditures for this
retirement program are anticipated to increase between 25 to 30%. This projected growth
necessitates an additional assessment of $355,000 to set-aside sufficient resources to pay for FY
2017 obligations.
Recommendation:
• Old model distribution: Maintain earmark status; assess and add to 2016 allocation level
$355,000 from district and state board allocations. Assessment will be based on share of
state and tuition expenditures for Higher Ed Retirement Program contributions in FY 2015.
• New model distribution: Place Supplemental Retiree Payments earmark in Safe Harbor
ongoing; assess from district and board allocations and add to 2016 allocation level
$355,000 from district and state board allocations. Assessment will be based on share of
state and tuition expenditures for Higher Ed Retirement Program contributions in FY 2015.
Prepared by the SBCTC Operating Budget Office
-5-
March 9, 2016
TAB 2
Attachment A
Tuition
 Tuition – Resident Undergraduate (Upper and Lower)
In 2017, the lower division tuition schedule will receive a statutorily required inflationary increase
to the building fee. Along with the building fee increase, the upper division tuition schedule will
receive a statutorily required tuition decrease to the operating fee. The 2017 fee must be 20
percent lower than 2015 levels. This is equal to a 16 percent reduction from 2016 levels. See
Attachment D – 2017 Draft Lower and Upper Division Tuition Summaries.
Recommendation:
• Increase upper and lower division 2016 building fee rates by 1.36 percent; Decrease the
2016 resident, upper-division by 16 percent.
 Tuition – Non-Resident Undergraduate
The SBCTC has delegated authority to adjust certain statewide fees, including non-resident
undergraduate tuition.
• Lower-division - increase the building fee as per statute and maintain the operating fee and
services and activities fee at 2016 levels.
• Upper-division - the operating fee by the same per credit hour incremental dollar decrease
experienced in the upper division, resident tuition schedule.
Recommendation:
• Implement underlying, statutorily required building fee adjustments for FY 2017; adjust
non-resident, upper division operating fee by same per credit hour increment change
occurring in resident, upper division.
 Innovation Account Funding – Percent of Tuition Dedicated to Innovation Account
Recommendation:
• Maintain the current rate of three percent.
Prepared by the SBCTC Operating Budget Office
-6-
March 9, 2016
TAB 2
Attachment A
Non-Allocation Model Budget Reduction
 Moore v. HCA Settlement
$19.3 million state and $13.4 million local
Both legislative supplemental budget proposals contain an $80 million settlement for a health
insurance eligibility lawsuit, Moore v. HCA. In the suit, plaintiffs argued state part-time employees
were improperly denied employer sponsored health insurance. A special account is proposed to
pay settlement costs and is funded through a transfer of settlement liability share from funds
identified in defendant agency expenditures between 2002 and 2015. The state portion of the
impact earmarked for the CTC system, $19.3 million, has been appropriated for transfer into the
settlement account. The remaining liability for the system of $13.4 million, based on local funds, is
to be provided to the treasurer for deposit into settlement account. The distribution of this liability
to colleges will use a yet to be determined method that attempts to align the basis for distribution
with the policy being addressed (i.e., part-time employee usage).
Recommendation:
• Old and new method distribution: IF APPROVED and if appropriated directly to the SBCTC,
allocate state funding to Future Allocations Reserves, for payment/deposit the Special
Personnel Litigation Account; Distribute local funding share of one-time liability to districts
based on share of (to be determined method), for payment/deposit into the Special
Personnel Litigation Account.
Prepared by the SBCTC Operating Budget Office
-7-
March 9, 2016
2017 Safe Harbor – Policy & List of Programs
TAB 2
Attachment B
Safe Harbor (SH) – this term will be used to refer to programs that receive allocations outside of the methods developed
for the new model. There are two categories for identifying these programs. The first are those identified by proviso in
the enacted biennial appropriations act. The other designation is by use of policy earmark to note the program’s priority
within the state appropriation. These items are allocated based on the methods unique to the policy requirements of
the program. Generally, Safe Harbor policy will allow for new investments to be uniquely allocated for four years. If
governed by proviso, programs will have two years following the last year of ‘proviso status.’ Current programs
designated as ‘earmarked’ receive four years of SH beginning in 2017. The list will be reviewed annually. The following is
a draft list of allocations recommended for Safe Harbor for fiscal year 2017.
Earmarks ($$)
Aerospace Apprenticeships
Aerospace Enrollments (1000 FTEs)
~Alternate Finance Project Debt Service (H)
Basic Skills Enhancement*
State Match – Federal Basic Ed Grant
Centers of Excellence
Climate Assessment Survey
Disability Accommodations
Employment Resource Center
Hospital Employee Education & Training
Labor Education & Research Center
Maritime Industries
Opportunity Grants
Students of Color
Supplemental Retirement Payments
University Contracts
Worker Retraining – General Appropriations
Workforce Development Projects
FY 2017
50,793,347
2,720,407
8,000,000
13,424,000
0
396,777
2,041,570
0
1,740,808
1,139,716
2,039,906
162,868
255,000
12,500,000
1,011,628
1,000,000
942,622
6,498,100
1,569,945
Proviso ($$)^
Allied Health Programs
Bellevue 4-Year Degree Program (BS Comp Sci)
~Civic Engagement Program (H)
COE for Aerospace
College Affordability Program (Tuition reduction)
Fabrication Wing Training Program
Feasibility Study
Job Skills Program
~Part Time Conversion Study (HB 2615)
MESA Community College Programs - MCCP
Student Achievement Initiative (SAI)#
~Wildfire Prevention Program (H)
Worker Retraining – Base
Worker Retraining – Variable
55,950,000
425,000
0
100,000
100,000
17,027,000
1,500,000
150,000
2,725,000
95,000
410,000
0
157,000
20,824,817
12,436,183
Change from 2016
Enrollments?
Last Year of SH
-2,737,797
0
0
4,650
-3,072,797
0
0
-20,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
355,000
0
0
0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
ongoing
2020
ongoing
NA
ongoing
ongoing
NA
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
ongoing
-4,873,000
0
ongoing
-750,000
NA
100,000
tbd
0
ongoing
355,000
2019
420,000
ongoing
0
NA
0
ongoing
95,000
tbd
0
ongoing
-5,250,000
NA
157,000
tbd
0
Yes
ongoing
0
Yes
ongoing
*The need for this earmark has been eliminated in the new model by placing Basic Education enrollments in priority status.
^Current provisos are assumed to expire at the end of 2017. An additional two years of Safe Harbor is included in the “Last year of SH” column.
~New proviso/budget investment. Final list of FY 2017 provisos are subject to the outcome of the 2016 supplemental budget process.
#
SAI Funding is provisoed in the enacted appropriations act, however it will be counted toward the share of total state appropriations dedicated to
performance funding in the new allocation model. It is not considered in Safe Harbor status.
DRAFT
TAB 2
Attachment C
2017 Enrollment Rules
Purpose: The Enrollment Rules are established as a method to ensure legislative enrollment targets are met and
that state appropriations are deployed strategically within the CTC system.
•
•
•
•
•
The rules will identify the types of enrollments to be distributed during the coming fiscal year.
The rules list methods used to determine district share of the District Enrollment Allocation Base (DEAB)
target, to be used in the allocation model to be implemented in FY 2017 (New Model), including which
colleges :
o Receive reductions in their DEAB target
 And the size of the DEAB reduction
o Eligible for increases to their DEAB target
 And the size of the DEAB increase
o Be allowed to count excess enrollments in periods of over-enrollment
The rules will identify methods to be used to identify Priority Enrollments for weighting in the New
Model.
The rules identify state enrollment counting limits. This includes limitations on counting non-resident,
international students toward state enrollment target attainment.
The rules will establish methods for allocating program enrollments that are held in Safe Harbor (SH), as
a proviso or earmark, including:
o Under what conditions a district will experience increases or decreases in the program
o How often adjustments to program targets will occur.
Enrollments to be allocated – 2017
The system total enrollment target is based on the state legislative target (established in the biennial
appropriations act). It also includes enrollment targets established beyond legislative requirements. The overall
system target is currently set at 140,031.
Enrollments in Safe Harbor
Within the overall system target, are enrollments considered in Safe Harbor status. This status is
determined either by legislative proviso or system earmark. Safe Harbor is provided for the two years
beyond the expiration of a legislative proviso or for four years total if identified as an earmark. The current
list of Safe Harbor enrollments includes:
Program
Aerospace Apprenticeships
Aerospace High Demand Enrollments
Hospital Employee Education and Training
University Contracts
Worker Retrainingp1
Total
Enrollments in the District Enrollment Allocation Base (DEAB)
p
Program governed by legislative proviso
1
Target
130
1,069
50
165
7,606
9,020
2017 Enrollment Rules
TAB 2
Attachment C
The portion of the overall system target outside of safe harbor is referred to as the District Enrollment
Allocation Base (DEAB). For FY 2017 the system-wide DEAB target is 131,011. The districts share of DEAB
will determine the allocation of state appropriations for weighted and unweighted enrollments.
Establishing the DEAB
The DEAB for each district will be set using the following method.
A. The DEAB target will use a comparison of the district’s three year average DEAB target
to the district’s actual DEAB enrollments.
1. Data used will be last three full academic years available for analysis (e.g., FY
2017, will use 2013, 2014 and 2015).
B. When comparing the three year averages, districts are grouped into two categories.
1. When the three year average actual enrollment is below the three year
average actual enrollment, the district is under-enrolled for purposes of
allocation development
a. The difference between three year target enrollments and three year
actual enrollments is calculated for all under-enrolled schools
i. The amount calculated is subtracted from the district’s current
DEAB target
a. This becomes the district’s new DEAB target
ii. DEAB target enrollments removed are pooled for
redistribution
2. When the three year average actual enrollment is above the three year
average target enrollment, the district is considered over-enrolled for
allocation purposes
a. The difference between three year target enrollments and three year
actual enrollments is calculated for all over-enrolled schools
i. The amount calculated for each over-enrolled district is
converted to a “percentage share” of total district overenrollments calculated.
ii. Districts receive a share of DEAB target enrollments pooled for
redistribution in B.1.a.ii (above)
iii. The value of the redistribution enrollment share is added to
the over-enrolled districts DEAB target.
a. This becomes the district’s new DEAB target
C. The district base enrollment value set in rule three above is added to any enrollments
allocated and governed by proviso or earmark.
1. This is enrollment total is the new target used to determine annual enrollment
target attainment.
i. Serves as the base from which districts with annual over-enrollment will
receive excess tuition.
2
Priority Enrollments – 2017
2017 Enrollment Rules
TAB 2
Attachment C
For FY 2017, enrollments identified as priority will receive additional funding in the new allocation
model. These enrollments will receive a per student funding rate 30 percent greater than unweighted
enrollments. The number of weighted enrollments funded each fiscal year will be a function of the
district DEAB (determined above in B.1.a.i.a & B.2.a.iii.a) multiplied by the percentage of actual state
enrollments in the priority identified categories, from the most recently completed academic year
(e.g., when building FY 2017, use FY 2015).
For FY 2017, the priority categories include FTE enrolled in:
1. Basic Education for Adults
2. Applied Baccalaureate programs (upper division sections only)
3. Enrollments in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math couses for STEM degree seeking
students (method of identifying to be examined in next meeting).
4. Enrollments in workforce programs that lead to degrees and credentials that would contribute
toward generating more qualified applicants for professions in the “A Skilled and Educated
Workforce: 2013” (an updated report is currently being finalized and evaluated by SBCTC
staff).
Allowable Enrollments for counting toward attainment of enrollment target – 2017
Non-Resident International Students
Beginning in 2017, districts may not count non-resident international students as state enrollments except as
allowed SBCTC Policy Chapter 5.110. Any international students counted as state-funded in excess of the
number allowed by policy will not be recognized for purposes of calculating target attainment or allocating state
funding.
Safe Harbor Enrollment Rules – 2017
The following programs contain enrollments that are governed by proviso (italicized) or are earmarked
as a policy priority by the system. Each of the programs is allocated based on a method unique to the
program.
Aerospace Apprenticeships – A portion (55 of 130) of this enrollment allocation is allocated to each
district and left unchanged from year to year (referred to as base earmark). The remaining
enrollments are allocated annually and use a process that involves recommendations and
collaboration with AJAC regarding current market capacity and apprenticeship locations.
Aerospace High Demand Enrollments – The program is currently distributed based on the RFPs
submitted prior to the FY 2014. Districts are currently in the third year of implementation, and have
been held harmless from re-distribution based on program performance compared to actual
enrollments. Allocations for FY 2018 are scheduled for an adjustment based on a review of target to
enrollment performance. Allocations will be re-distributed based on a competitive RFP process to
solicit new program distribution.
Hospital Employee Education and Training – The program is distributed on an annual basis through a
competitive RFP process. Funds are awarded with the expectation of project completion by the end of
the fiscal year.
3
2017 Enrollment Rules
TAB 2
Attachment C
University Contracts – The university contract enrollments have been distributed based on bids
submitted by five community colleges and their four-year partners in 2005. A redistribution of ten
enrollments occurred in 2015, to the four remaining participant colleges.
Worker Retraining - College districts that fail to meet 100 percent of their Worker Retraining enrollment
allocation for two consecutive years will have their Worker Retraining enrollment allocation and associated
funding in the subsequent year reduced by 75 percent of the difference between the allocated and actual
enrollment in the second year.
4
TAB 2
Attachment D
WASHINGTON STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE TUITION AND FEE RATES
DRAFT - Lower Division Tuition
2015-16
RESIDENTS
NONRESIDENTS
Assumes 15 Credits per Quarter
RESIDENTS
2016-17
NONRESIDENTS
Assumes 15 Credits per Quarter
ANNUAL
Operating Fee
Building Fee
Maximum S & A Fee
Tuition and Fees
$3,056.25
$380.10
$409.65
$3,846.00
$8,051.85
$787.50
$409.65
$9,249.00
$3,056.25
$385.35
$409.65
$3,851.25
$8,051.85
$798.30
$409.65
$9,259.80
QUARTERLY
Operating Fee
Building Fee
Maximum S & A Fee
Tuition and Fees
$1,018.75
$126.70
$136.55
$1,282.00
$2,683.95
$262.50
$136.55
$3,083.00
$1,018.75
$128.45
$136.55
$1,283.75
$2,683.95
$266.10
$136.55
$3,086.60
PER CREDIT
Operating Fee
Building Fee
Maximum S & A Fee
Tuition and Fees
PER CREDIT
Operating Fee
Building Fee
Maximum S & A Fee
Tuition and Fees
EXCESS CREDIT SURCHARGE
Operating Fee Only
1-10 Credits
$81.40
$10.77
$10.58
$102.75
$244.68
$24.00
$10.58
$279.26
Average Incremental Increase for Each Credit
between 11 and 18
$40.95
$47.43
$3.80
$4.50
$6.15
$6.15
$50.90
$58.08
19+ Credits
$92.17
$268.68
1-10 Credits
$81.40
$10.92
$10.58
$102.90
Average Incremental Increase for Each
Credit between 11 and 18
$40.95
$47.43
$3.85
$4.56
$6.15
$6.15
$50.95
$58.14
19+ Credits
$92.32
UNGRADED COURSES - per credit fees - Operating Fees deposited to Fund 149
2015-16
Comments
Apprenticeship
(Clock hour equivalent)
ABE, ESL, GED
Compentency Based
Programs
50% waiver
Colleges may waive the
$25 charge for students
who are unable to pay
Method for establishing
tuition governed by WAC
131-28-025, subsection (2),
amened by State Board
Resolution 14-09-60 (Sept.
10, 2014)
$244.68
$24.33
$10.58
$279.59
$269.01
2016-17
Per Credit Fee
$51.00
$3.36
$25 per student
per quarter
Program length (in
months) divided by three
and multiplied by
quarterly tuition and fees
at 15 credit hours (above)
Comments
50% waiver
Colleges may waive the
$25 charge for students
who are unable to pay
Method for establishing
tuition governed by WAC
131-28-025, subsection (2),
amened by State Board
Resolution 14-09-60 (Sept.
10, 2014)
Per Credit Fee
$51.00
$3.36
$25 per student
per quarter
Program length (in
months) divided by
three and multiplied
by quarterly tuition
and fees at 15 credit
hours (above)
Colleges are authorized to charge tuition to Running Start students when the student’s choice of credit load exceeds the level that will be reimbursed
by the school district.
Study Session
March 23, 2016
Tab 3
2017-19 Operating budget development
Brief description
At its February 2016 meeting, the State Board kicked off the 2017-19 operating budget development
process by engaging in a discussion with presidents, students, trustees and labor representatives to
identify the definition of “budget success” when participants visualized the contents of the final 2017-19
operating budget (see Attachment A – 2017-19 Budget Development – February Summary). The
SBCTC develops a biennial operating budget request on behalf of the entire community and technical
college system every two years. The 2017-19 biennium operating budget submittal is due to the Office
of Financial Management in September 2016. Future State Board meetings will include small group and
roundtable discussions with presidents, local trustees, labor representatives and student representatives
(see Attachment B – SBCTC 2017-19 Operating Budget Development Timeline).
How does this link to the system direction, mission study and policy focus
The biennial budget request is one of the primary instruments used by the State Board to request state
appropriations which support the State Board’s priorities. The SBCTC System Direction and Mission
Study guide the development of the budget in line with the State Board’s priorities.
Background information and analysis
Each biennial budget cycle, the system requests funding for new investments geared at improving
educational outcomes for our students. However, since the Great Recession and the new budget
environment it created, these requests have fallen flat due to statewide revenue issues. In past cycles, our
system’s policy statements concerning statewide revenue policy ranged from invisible (regarding state
general fund sources) to delayed (regarding discussing annual tuition increases or decreases). A strong
theme revealing itself in 2017-19 budget development discussions thus far is the desire to present a
stronger voice in the discussion of revenue policy in budget development.
Currently, approximately $1.1 billion of the system’s annual expenditures come from state and tuition
revenues. The remaining $0.2 million comes from fees and contract charges for services provided.
Legislation enacted last year decreased community and technical college lower division tuition for the
current academic year by 5 percent, and require that it stay the same for the 2016-17 academic year.
Thereafter, tuition can increase by no more than the rate of inflation. This new policy could result in
cuts to college programs if the Legislature requires salary increases but does not fully fund those
increases.
At this meeting, Board members and invited guests will discuss whether the system’s 2017-19 operating
budget request should include a policy statement on revenues, and if so, how strong that statement
should be.
Potential questions
•
How strong of a policy statement does the State Board want to make on behalf of the system on
revenue?
Recommendation/preferred result
The State Board will review Attachment A – 2017-19 Budget Development – February Summary.
Staff will engage with the State Board and through panel discussion with presidents, trustees, students
and labor representatives to revenue policy ideas to use in the development of the 2017-19 biennial
budget. The State Board will provide feedback to staff on processes and future direction of the
development process.
Policy manual change Yes ☐ No ☒
Prepared by: Nick Lutes, director, operating budget
360-704-1023, nlutes@sbctc.edu
TAB 3
Attachment A
2017-19 Biennial Budget Development – February Summary
The State Board for Community and Technical Colleges kicked-off the 2017-19 biennial budget development process
with a contextual overview of the system and the project budget environment and a broad discussion focused on how
participants viewed “budget success”.
The overview briefly reviewed historical trends for system budget and cost drivers, as well as provided highlights on the
most recent economic and revenue forecasts from state forecasters.
Following the discussion of budget context, the Board engaged various stakeholders in a “visioning” exercise. Like
professionals in many fields, who dedicate time mentally envisioning precisely how they will execute their craft,
community and technical college system stakeholders were asked to discuss what the vision of a “successful budget
outcome for the community and technical colleges” was from their perspective. The group consisted of the following
participants:
Students: Wilson Kessel (Centralia), Joseph Shea (Skagit Valley), Joe Spieldenner, (Renton)
Labor:
Bernal Baca (AFT), Carla Naccarato-Sinclair (WEA), Karen Strickland (AFT)
Trustees: Tyler Paige (Renton)
Presidents: Jim Richardson (Wenatchee Valley), Jack Bermingham (Highline)
Students began the visioning and identified success as investments in the system that focused on:
• Improving the achievement gap
• Improving Equity, Access, and Inclusion
• Improving success rates on the path from Basic Education to post-secondary degree or credential.
• Expanding workforce programs
• Streamlining the transfer education process
• Expanding opportunity for Applied Baccalaureate programs
• Expanding/publicizing the Running Start program
The investments would be focused on wrap-around services that provide personal and human elements to the
education experience that reduce student stress and improve completion rates. Focus should be given to traditionally
under-represented populations to improve completion rates, however all students were included in the need for wraparound services to improve retention and ultimately degree/credential completion.
For representatives of labor, future budget success included the identification of a “best practice” rate of state support
in higher education. Investments would be in services known to improve student outcomes across multiple measures.
It would include investments that improve the ratio of full-time, tenured faculty to total faculty used by the CTC system.
The trustee participant identified success as investments that improve our attractiveness to those who are moving
toward and enrolling in private-for-profit educational organizations.
To conclude the discussion, the presidents identified success as investments which:
• Identify solutions for annual inflation and increasing costs to provide same level of service
• Focus on improving participation rates for under-represented populations in higher education
• Improve full-time faculty ratios
• Improve system competiveness in faculty and staff salaries
The investments would need to reflect an incremental step toward a higher per student funding level goal, which is
focused on providing services to students that are proactive and don’t wait for students to present, because they
probably don’t know they need the help until it is too late.
The State Board identified success as a two year request that is clearly stated as a down payment on a long-range
budget plan. The plan would include a strategy (developed with employer community input) on how to fund our system
goals. Success would involve a policy statement on taxes related to higher education and investments would maintain
the CTC system as a door used by the majority of our residents to achieve a post-secondary degree or credential.
1
TAB 3
Attachment A
2017-19 Biennial Budget Development – February Summary
Visioning Discussion with Washington Association of Community and Technical Colleges (WACTC) – February 2016
At their February meeting, presidents enaged in a discussion framed by the same leading question examined during the
State Board Meeting. Overall, there was agreement that planning should result in an multi-year budget horizon that
informs the coming 2017-19 biennial development process. Substantively, the discussion revolved around:
•
•
•
What is our preferred future?
o Our budget request should show the initial investments required to reach desired education goals and
to close state skills gaps.
 Increasing investments in the base that lead to direct improvements in educational milestones
• Increased retention
• Increased completion
• Reduce the achievement gap
A status quo investment outcome is not acceptable.
o The system needs to examine any and all potential sources of revenue
 What are the options?
o The short-armed budget investments that put pressure on local funds are not sustainable
 Local funds are becoming more reliable than state funds
 Improving cost point for students without proper replacement/backfill of lost revenue is, from a
college perspective, a budget cut wrapped in a good policy…but still a budget cut.
o Need to increase funding in the base appropriation per enrollment, which will allow for increases in
wrap-around services, which improve student outcomes.
 Can we define an ideal investment level?
Improving the resonance of our message.
o How do we get our message to rise above the rest of the state-wide budget noise and move decision
makers into upgrading our priority in state planning?
o Our system provides the majority of publicly funded higher education and certainly will be required to
close societal education gaps.
 Even as this is acknowledged by decision makers, we fail to inspire investments in our value
proposition.
 This is attributed to many things:
• We succeed when budget failure is everywhere – we do more with less, and the
Legislature takes this for granted.
• Bias toward four year institutional mission.
• Is CRISIS the only way to demonstrate the funding struggle?
2
2017-19 SBCTC Operating Budget Development Timeline
TAB 3
Attachment B
State Board Meeting February 3-4, 2016
• Initial discussion on 2017-19 operating budget development
• Staff presentation on recent budget history, outlook for 2017-19 state budget: Review 2015-17
budget themes and priorities
o Roundtable discussion with presidents, trustees, labor, students and staff
• Outcome: Provide direction to staff on updating priorities and themes
Activities between February and March Board meetings:
• WACTC meetings
o February 25-26 – Context; discuss system principles and further develop priorities and
themes
• February 17 Revenue Forecast
• 60-day legislative session adjourns March 10
o Legislative 2016 supplemental budgets released (enacted)
State Board Meeting March 23-24, 2016
• Staff presentation on impacts of 2016 supplemental budget, updated context and outlook on
2017-19 state budget, outcomes resulting from prior discussions on principles and themes
o Study session discussion format: Small group and roundtable discussion with presidents,
trustees, labor, students and staff
 Question: What are the policy items you believe translate the current principles
and themes into potential budget requests?
o Outcome: Direction to staff on potential budget request items to include in the 2017-19
biennial budget request
Activities between March and May Board meetings:
• WACTC Meetings
o March 24-25
 Updated budget context
 Outcome of 2016 legislative session
o April 28-29 -- WACTC Budget Academy
 Prioritize themes and items from March State Board small group discussions
State Board Meeting May 4-5, 2016
• Staff presentation on Presidents’ Budget Academy discussion
• Study session discussion format: Small group and roundtable discussion with presidents, trustees,
labor, students and staff
o Question: What is the proper prioritization of the potential request items generated at the
Board’s March meeting?
• Outcome: Prioritization of items to include in budget request, before approval in June
Activities between May and June Board meetings:
• June 2-3, WACTC Meeting
• ACT Spring Convention and ACT Legislative Steering Committee meetings
State Board Meeting June 22-23, 2016
• Outcome: Direction to staff on list of items to include in request and direction to staff complete the
request
System activities between June and September Board meetings:
• WACTC Retreat
State Board Meeting September 2016
• Outcome: Board finalizes and approves budget request, directs staff to submit to Governor
Prepared by SBCTC Operating Budget Office
Tab 4a
STATE BOARD MEETING
Meeting Minutes
State Board Office, Olympia
Shaunta Hyde, chair ● Elizabeth Chen, vice chair
Jim Bricker ● Anne Fennessy ● Wayne Martin
Larry Brown ● Jay Reich ● Carol Landa-McVicker ● Phyllis Gutierrez-Kenney
Marty Brown, executive director ● Beth Gordon, executive assistant
Statutory Authority: Laws of 1967, Chapter 28B.50 Revised Code of Washington
Action Index
Resolution
Description
SBCTC meeting minutes, Dec. 2, 2015
16-02-01
Green River College, Trades and industry building project
16-02-02
Yakima Valley Community College, bachelor of applied science, dental
hygiene
16-02-03
Pierce College, bachelor of applied science, teaching
16-02-04
Pierce College, bachelor of applied science, homeland security emergency
management
16-02-05
Bellingham Technical College, bachelor of applied science, operations
management
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
www.sbctc.edu | Feb. 2016
State Board members present
Shaunta Hyde, Elizabeth Chen, Jim Bricker, Larry Brown, Anne Fennessy, Jay Reich, Carol Landa-McVicker and Phyllis
Gutierrez-Kenney
State Board members absent
Wayne Martin
Call to order and welcome
Chair Shaunta Hyde called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. welcomed those present, and asked for audience
introductions.
Adoption of regular meeting agenda
Motion:
Moved by Jim Bricker and seconded by Jay Reich that the State Board adopt its Feb. 4, 2016, regular meeting
agenda as presented.
Adoption of consent agenda (Resolution 16-02-01)
Motion:
Moved by Jim Bricker and seconded by Jay Reich that the State Board adopt the consent agenda for its
Feb. 4, 2016, regular meeting as presented:
a.
b.
SBCTC meeting minutes, October 29, 2015
Green River College, Trades and industry building project
Resolution 16-02-01
Trustees’ Association report
•
•
•
ACT Winter Conference
Transforming Lives Awards
ACCT Legislative Summit in Washington DC
Presidents’ Association report
•
•
•
•
ctcLink
SBCTC budget process
Baccalaureate degree task force
Transforming Lives Awards
Consideration of baccalaureate degrees (Resolutions 16-02-02 through
16-02-05)
State Board goals are designed to raise education attainment, open more doors to education–particularly for our
fast-growing adult population–and build upon our tradition of excellence. Colleges offering applied baccalaureate
degrees meet the needs of changing economies by increasing the number of skilled employees in the areas of
greatest need. Through this, colleges create greater access to higher education by enrolling underserved
populations, particularly place-bound working adults, and ensure community and technical colleges are affordable
and accessible for students.
The final step in the approval process requires State Board action on the college’s application to offer the proposed
applied baccalaureate degrees. The following proposals meet criteria established by statue and board policy based
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
www.sbctc.edu | Feb. 2016 | Page 2
on staff review and feedback from peer reviewers from the community and technical college system.
Motion:
Moved by Carol Landa McVicker and seconded by Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney that the State Board adopt
Resolution 16-02-02 approving the Yakima Valley Community College bachelor of applied science in
dental hygiene.
Motion:
Moved by Anne Fennessy and seconded by Larry Brown that the State Board adopt Resolution 16-02-03
approving the Pierce College bachelor of applied science in teacher education.
Motion:
Moved by Jim Bricker and seconded by Jay Reich that the State Board adopt Resolution 16-02-04
approving the Pierce College bachelor of applied science in homeland security emergency management.
Motion:
Moved by Jay Reich and seconded by Carol Landa McVicker that the State Board adopt Resolution 1602-05 approving the Bellingham Technical College bachelor of applied science in operations
management.
2017-19 Capital budget project scoring update
Wayne Doty presented that in February 2015 the State Board identified the eligible colleges and adopted criteria to select
new major capital projects for their 2017-19 capital budget request. Nine of the ten eligible colleges submitted proposals
for scoring. A scoring task force has been convened for the scoring and is expected to have final scores for release in
Feb. 2016. State Board staff and task force members will provide scores for review at the March meeting.
ctcLink update
Deputy Executive Director of Information Technology, Mike Scroggins and his staff gave an update on the ctcLink project.
Included in the update were briefings on the dashboard, stabilization process, charter of accounts and business processes.
Executive director report
•
•
•
•
•
Summary of approved local capital projects over $1 million
Parking lot
New staff in the Governors Education Policy Office
Aspen Awards, nine colleges remain in the running
Jill Wakefield award from Seattle University
Chair report
•
2016 State Board Retreat Dates
Open public comment
Mark Hamilton – AFSCME re Green River College
Adjournment/next meeting
There being no further business, the State Board adjourned its regular meeting of Feb. 4, 2016 at 11:20 a.m. The State
Board will hold its next meeting March 23-24, 2016 at the State Board Office in Olympia.
Attest:
Marty Brown, secretary
Shaunta Hyde, chair
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
www.sbctc.edu | Feb. 2016 | Page 3
Consent Item (Resolution 16-03-06)
March 24, 2016
Tab 4b
Olympic College, property acquisitions, 1720 Warren
Avenue and 914 17th Street
Brief description
Olympic College seeks to acquire and renovate an office building with parking at 1720 Warren Avenue
and adjacent vacant lot at 914 17th Street in Bremerton Washington, for the college’s new electrical
engineering program.
How does this link to the system direction, mission study and policy focus
This acquisition and future use will improve student access to education.
Background information and analysis
The proposed property acquisitions are immediately north of Olympic College’s Robert B Stewart
Building where the Mechanical Engineering program is offered in partnership with Washington State
University that was started in 2009, and other classes are taught. The acquired properties will be
renovated for a new Electrical Engineering program to be offered in partnership with WSU starting in
the fall quarter of 2016.
The properties are owned by the City of Bremerton. In 2014 the properties had a total assessed value of
$378,050. The City has offered the properties to the college for $115,000. The College Board of
Trustees approved the acquisition for $115,000 plus closing costs on February 16, 2016. The estimated
closing costs and fees are $21,000 bringing the total cost to $136,000.
The WSU will reimburse Olympic College for the cost of renovation which is estimated to be $900,000.
The college is also requesting this local expenditure authority.
There is a map of the proposed acquisition relative to the college’s current campus in Attachment A.
Potential questions
Is the acquisition consistent with the State Board's goal of finding more and better ways to reduce
barriers and expand opportunities so more Washingtonians can reach higher levels of education?
Recommendation/preferred result
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 16-03-06, giving Olympic College authority to purchase and
renovate the office building with parking lot at 1720 Warren Avenue and adjacent vacant lot at 914 17th
Street in Bremerton Washington, using $1,036,000 in local funds, for the college’s new Electrical
Engineering program.
Policy Manual change Yes ☐ No ☒
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, director capital budget
360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
Tab 4b
State of Washington
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
Resolution 16-03-06
A resolution relating to Olympic College’s request to acquire and renovate an office building with
parking at 1720 Warren Avenue and adjacent vacant lot at 914 17th Street in Bremerton Washington.
WHEREAS, the college is requesting authority to use $115,000 plus $21,000 in estimated closing costs
for acquisition and $900,000 for renovation, for a total of $1,036,000 in local funds; and
WHEREAS, the proposed acquisitions are adjacent to Olympic College’s existing campus; and
WHEREAS, the renovated property will be used for the college’s new Electrical Engineering program
offered in partnership with the Washington State University; and
WHEREAS, the WSU will reimburse the college for the cost of renovation; and
WHEREAS, the Olympic College Board of Trustees approved the acquisition on February 16, 2016;
and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
authorizes Olympic College authority to use up to $1,036,000 in local funds to purchases and renovate
the properties at 1720 Warren Avenue and adjacent vacant lot at 914 17th Street in Bremerton
Washington, to be used for the college’s new Electrical Engineering, in partnership with WSU.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
authorizes the executive director to make adjustments to this action, including any necessary changes to
the State Board’s policy manual, as necessary, for actions taken by the governor, Legislature, data
corrections, externally imposed restrictions or guidelines, uniform accounting and reporting
requirements, and unanticipated changes in state or federal law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on March 24, 2016.
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Marty Brown, secretary
__________________________________
Shaunta Hyde, chair
TAB 4b Attachment A
Olympic College Bremerton | Campus Map
Faculty/Staff
Parking
Career Center
Campus
Safety
Financial
Aid
HSS
Basic
Studies SSH Offices
International
Student
Services
HL
Library
Nursing
F-4
Faculty Offices
Faculty/Staff
Parking
ST
PED
Staff/Visitor
Parking
Book
Store
F-3
Faculty/
Staff
Parking
Athletics
Gym
Student Multicultural
Programs Center
BSC
Faculty/Staff
Parking
ASOC
MUS
ENG
MUS
Studios
SSH Faculty
Office Offices
BUS
F-2
Art
Gallery
Faculty
Offices
2nd Floor
ART
F-1
ART
F-7
Faculty/Staff
Parking
Duplicating
Services
FSB
Parking
G-2
F-7
Carpool
Parking
General
Parking
Parking
G-1
General
Parking
BHS Lot
Do Not Park Here
G-8
G-3
General
Parking
M-F
7am-4pm
12TH STREET
CHESTER AVE
BHS Lot
Do Not Park Here
BROADWAY AVENUE
BHS Lot
Do Not Park Here
RBS
General
Parking
G-6
General
Parking
Kitsap Transit Bus Stop
General
Parking
Charging Station
Mail Box
Emergency Phones
Visitor Parking
Non-OC Parking
Building/Location
13TH STREET
BHS Lot
Do Not Park Here
G-1
Parking
14TH STREET
SHP
G-5
Accessible Entrance
& Parking
Parking
North/South
Conference Fireside
Bistro
Rooms
Veterans
Center
17TH STREET
ATM
BROADWAY AVENUE
B&T
Office
RO
To Student Housing | 1100 12th Street
TEC
F-8
Food
Service
University
Partnerships
LINCOLN AVENUE
Faculty/
Staff
Parking
LINCOLN AVENUE
To Bremerton High School
15TH STREET
F-11
General
Parking
Parking and Services
WARREN AVENUE
F-6
G-7
16TH STREET
MESH
Offices
THR
Not to Scale
Visitor Parking
Clocktower
“Pi” Sculpture
Continuing Education
Distance Learning
To Bremerton Memorial Stadium
OHIO AVENUE
Lecture
Hall
CSC
COLLEGE INSTRUCTION CENTER
CONSTRUCTION SITE
Admissions/
Registration/
Advising
BROADWAY AVENUE
HOC
N
Engineering
Drop Off
F-5
To 11th Street & Downtown Bremerton
Faculty/Staff Parking
ONE WAY
F-10
Proposed Acquisitions
To Warren Avenue Bridge, East Bremerto
n, and Silverdale
SBCDC
WARREN AVENUE
CHESTER AVENUE
18TH STREET
ART......... Art Building
BSC ........ Bremer Student Center
BUS ........ Business Building
CSC ........ College Service Center
ENG ........ Engineering Building
FSB......... Facilities Services
Building
HOC ........ Health Occupations
Building
HL........... Haselwood Library
Rm 110. Distance Learning
Classroom
Rm 114. TV Studio
Rm 127..Bibliographic Instruction
Classroom
HSS........ Humanities & Student
Services
MUS ....... Music Building
PED ........ Physical Education
Building
RBS........ Robert B. Stewart Engineering Building
RO...........Rotunda Building
SBCDC.... Sophia Bremer Child
Development Center
ST........... Science & Technology
Building
SHP ........ Shop Building
TEC ......... Technical Building
THR......... Theater
1600 Chester Avenue
Bremerton, WA 98337-1699
360.792.6050
http://apps.olympic.edu/campusmap/
12TH STREET
General
Parking
11TH STREET
OCBMap | Updated 9/21/15
Consent Item (Resolution 16-03-07)
March 24, 2016
Tab 4c
Centralia College, Property Acquisition, 717 Centralia
College Boulevard
Brief Description
Centralia College seeks to purchase approximately .31 acres at 717 Centralia College Boulevard in
Centralia, Washington, to be used for parking. This is part of the parking mitigation for the new Student
Services project 30000123 and approximately $195,000 of the appropriated funds for this project will be
used for the acquisition.
How does this link to the System Direction, Mission Study, and Policy Focus
This acquisition and subsequent parking will improve student access to education.
Background Information and Analysis
The City of Centralia has required the college to add parking to mitigate the parking spots lost due to
placement of the new Student Service building and address the existing parking shortage. The increased
parking capacity is expected to alleviate congestion in residential areas.
The property currently has a 1648 square foot home on it that was built in 1915. The college will
demolish the home and use the land for parking.
The estimated total cost of $195,000 will be paid from the funds appropriated for the project.
Potential Questions
Is the acquisition consistent with the State Board's goal of finding more and better ways to reduce
barriers and expand opportunities so more Washingtonians can reach higher levels of education?
Recommendation/Preferred Result
Staff recommends approval of Resolution 16-03-07, giving Centralia College authority to purchase
approximately .31 acres at 771 Centralia College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington, to be used for
parking.
Policy Manual Change Yes ☐ No ☒
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, Capital Budget Director
360-704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
Tab 4c
State of Washington
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
Resolution 16-03-07
A resolution relating to Centralia College’s request to purchase approximately .31 acres at 717 Centralia
College Boulevard in Centralia, Washington, to be used for parking.
WHEREAS, the College has critical parking needs which acquisition of this property helps to address;
and
WHEREAS, the purchase of the property will enable the College to incorporate this site into its overall
master plan and alleviate congestion in residential areas with the increased parking capacity; and
WHEREAS, appropriations for the new Student Service building 30000123 includes funding to
mitigate parking impacts of the project;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
authorizes Centralia College to purchase approximately .31 acres at 717 Centralia College Boulevard in
Centralia, Washington, to be used for parking.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
authorizes the Executive Director to make adjustments to this action, including any necessary changes to
the State Board’s Policy Manual, as necessary, for actions taken by the Governor, Legislature, data
corrections, externally imposed restrictions or guidelines, uniform accounting and reporting
requirements, and unanticipated changes in state or federal law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on March 24, 2016.
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Marty Brown, Secretary
__________________________________
Shaunta Hyde, Chair
O 717 Centralia College Blvd, Centralia
Parcel Number 000131000000
M
I
N O L
BC D
E
A
A
s
A
K
G
F
H
Tab 4c
Attachment A
Study Session
March 24, 2016
Tab 5
Capital budget update
Brief description
In this study session staff will provide an update on the 2016 supplemental capital budget. Staff will also
present the results from the major project scoring for development of the 2017-19 biennial capital
budget request. The State Board will be asked to adopt a 2017-19 capital budget request at their May
2016 meeting.
How does this link to the System Direction, Mission Study, and Policy Focus
The facilities built and maintained using funds from the capital budget support the State Board’s goals
by increasing access to post-secondary education, promoting student achievement and success, and
building on the system’s strengths and successes.
Background information and analysis
The State Board adopted their 2015-17 capital budget request and 2015-25 ten-year plan (i.e., project
pipeline) in May 2014. Several projects in that request were not funded in the 2015-17 biennial capital
budget. In June 2015, the State Board adopted its 2016 supplemental budget request, which includes
projects not funded in the biennial budget and four locally funded projects in response to emergent
opportunities. The supplemental request was submitted to the Office of Financial Management on
October 5, 2015, for consideration in the governor’s capital proposal and the subsequent legislative
session. Staff will provide an update on the legislative supplemental capital proposals and final budget,
if available.
In February 2015, the State Board adopted criteria for the selection of new major projects for the 201719 capital budget request. Since then, system groups and staff have been preparing to present a budget
recommendation based on these criteria to the State Board at their May 2016 meeting. In this study
session, representatives from the major project proposals scoring task force will present the scoring
results and answer any questions the State Board may have about their work.
Attachment A is a side-by-side comparison of the State Board’s 2016 supplemental request and the
legislative proposals and final budget, if available. Attachment B is the list of members of the scoring
task force, their activities and the 2017-19 major project scoring results. Attachment C is a ten-year
plan (i.e., project pipeline) updated with the 2016 supplemental request, if available, and the top three
new projects.
Potential questions
•
•
Is the budget being developed consistent with the State Board’s vision, goals, and plans?
Is there other information that the State Board needs before adopting a 2017-19 capital budget
request at the May 2016 State Board meeting?
Recommendation/preferred result
Staff will provide an update on the current biennium capital budget and development of a budget request
for next biennium. The State Board will have the opportunity to ask questions about the scoring process
Tab 5
and provide feedback for preparation of a 2017-19 capital budget recommendation for the next State
Board meeting.
Policy manual change: Yes ☐ No ☒
Prepared by: Wayne Doty, capital budget director
(360) 704-4382, wdoty@sbctc.edu
2
2016 Supplemental Capital Budget Request and Proposals
New appropriations
Priority
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
College
Edmonds
Wenatchee
Olympic
Pierce Fort Steilacoom
Whatcom
South Seattle
Bates
Shoreline
Number
30000137
30000985
30000986
30000987
30000138
30000988
30000989
30000990
Description
Science Engineering Technology Bldg
Wells Hall Replacement
Shop Building Renovation
Cascade Building Renovation - Phase 3
Learning Commons
Automotive Technology
Medical Mile Health Science Center
Allied Health, Science & Manufacturing
Total:
SBCTC Req
$ 36,106,000
$ 2,518,000
$
842,000
$ 2,982,000
$ 32,181,000
$ 2,027,000
$ 2,880,000
$ 3,087,000
$ 82,623,000
17Dec16
Governor Psl
$ 36,106,0001
$
$
$
1
$ 32,181,000
$
$
$
$ 68,287,000
24Feb17 House
Psl
$ 36,106,0001
$
$
$
1
$ 32,181,000
$
$
$
$ 68,287,000
24Feb17 Senate
Psl
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
-
The Governor and House proposal authorized financing. The House proposal included the necessary Building Fee appropriation to pay the debt service on these projects.
Authorities to finance using local funds
Number
30001287
30001288
30001289
30001290
Description
Student Housing
Gymnasium Renovation
Recreation Center
Student Housing
SBCTC Req
$ 45,700,000
$ 19,500,000
$ 6,200,000
$ 3,000,000
Total: $ 74,400,000
24Feb17 House
Psl
$ 45,700,000
$ 19,500,000
$ 6,200,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 74,400,000
24Feb17 Senate
Psl
$ 45,700,000
$ 19,500,000
$ 6,200,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 74,400,000
TAB 5 Attachment A
College
Bellevue
Spokane Falls
Wenatchee Valley
Pierce Fort Steilacoom
17Dec16
Governor Psl
$ 45,700,000
$ 19,500,000
$ 6,200,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 74,400,000
February 24, 2016
Prepare by SBCTC Capital Budget Office
2017-19 Capital Scoring Taskforce
The following system representatives were asked by WACTC Capital to score major capital
projects for possible inclusion in the 2017-19 budget request. We received nine project
proposals from the ten colleges eligible to submit a proposal.
Each scorer rated each proposal relative to the established criteria. The committee will then
reconciled their scores to establish a ranked list of projects. The observers assured
transparency and consistency in the process.
Scorers
Observers
Washington Association of Community and Technical Colleges
Terry Leas, Big Bend
Rich Cummins, Columbia Basin
Association of College Trustees
Jon Lane, Big Bend
Pete Lewis, Green River
Instruction Commission
Rebecca Rhodes, Spokane
Tim Cook, Clark
Business Affairs Commission
Melinda Merrell, Renton
Steve Ward, Centralia
State Board
Steve Lewandowski
Joyce Hammer
Non-scoring Staff
Wayne Doty, Capital Budget Director
Devin DuPree, Policy Research Associate
Amanda Savin, Assistant to the Deputy Executive Director of Finance
1
TAB 5 Attachment B
Student Services
Darren Pitcher, Spokane Falls
Leslie Blackaby, Yakima
Activities
10:00a – 2:00p January 11th at State Board in Olympia
Review budget development resources, discuss criteria, summary of requests, scoring
worksheets, protocols, differentiation and expected outcomes. Distribute proposals and
score sheets on USB memory stick.
January 12th – February 9th - Read proposals.
2:00p – 4:00p February 9th via WebEx and in person at State Board in Olympia
Discuss issues encountered during review. Review preliminary scores. Discuss enrollment
projections. Discuss scores for individual criteria. Recommendations for improvement of
scoring process.
January 11th through February 7th - Five clarifications were requested by the task force
were answered.
1:00p – 2:00p February 16th via WebEx and in person at State Board in Olympia
Review average final scores and ranking. Identify task force representatives for February
25th WACTC and March 23rd State Board meetings.
February 19th Marty Brown released scoring results to Presidents and State Board
members. Wayne Doty sent each college their score sheet.
2
Proposal Preparation Costs, Hours and Schedules
Staff hours
Staff hours
for DAHP
timeline
internal
planning
hiring
consultants
develop
proposal
$ 15,160 $
$ 46,669 $
433
$ 90,000 $ 1,460
100
230
450
0
5
20
about right
about right
about right
1
6
10
1
2
5
1
5
9
Consultant
College
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Schedule
Consultant
breakout for
DAHP
Proposal Cost
This information was collected from the colleges after the results were released.
Results
Replacement
New
0
0
66,100
0
0
70,000
39,719
54,800
9,942
Renovation
58,177
16,044
66,100
50,174
26,730
70,000
69,155
54,800
21,500
Infrastructure
$ 31,063,536
$ 40,704,786
$ 81,322,827
$ 110,317,342
$ 124,441,771
$ 155,505,307
$ 194,213,001
$ 226,279,749
$ 238,846,127
Matching
$ 31,063,536
$ 9,641,250
$ 40,618,041
$ 28,994,515
$ 14,124,429
$ 31,063,536
$ 38,707,694
$ 32,066,748
$ 12,566,378
Net New GSF
College
North Seattle
Walla Walla
Cascadia
Lower Columbia
Skagit Valley
Pierce Puyallup
Tacoma
Lake Washington
Bellingham
GSF
Score
80.15
78.61
77.99
77.76
76.41
75.23
73.18
72.37
71.79
Cumulative
Proposals
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Cost
Project Weighting
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
13%
0%
0%
7%
0%
5%
4%
4%
5%
4%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
95%
0%
41%
0%
45%
0%
0%
94%
0%
0%
96%
55%
92%
39%
3
Prioritized List for New Major Projects in the SBCTC 2017-19 Capital Budget Request
The following college proposals were scored and ranked for potential addition to the system’s
2017-19 capital budget request. The State Board will consider adding some of these projects to
the system’s pipeline so they can be constructed in priority order after the major projects
currently in design.
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
College
North Seattle
Walla Walla
Cascadia
Lower Columbia
Skagit Valley
Pierce Puyallup
Tacoma
Lake Washington
Bellingham
Proposed Project
Library Building Renovation
Science & Technology Building Replacement
Center for Science and Technology
Vocational Education & Classroom Building
Replace the Norwood Cole Library
Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics Building
Business and Humanities Center
Center for Design
Engineering Technology Center
How many will be added to the pipeline?
WACTC has recommended three projects be added to the pipeline based on the system’s 2016
supplemental capital request, which is currently being considered by the legislature, and
anticipated future funding levels. Adding more projects than can be funded could lead to delays
in starting projects and gaps between design and construction funding. This recommendation
will be revisited after the supplemental budget is known.
How were these projects scored?
Proposals were scored and ranked according to criteria developed by our system and adopted by
the State Board on February 5, 2015. The criteria balance the need to renovate or replace
existing space – or add new space – with the project’s likelihood of success, its cost, level of
community support, and potential to improve student outcomes.
This competition was limited to nine colleges. These colleges have not had a major project
funded since the 2011-13 biennium nor were they already in the pipeline for a future request.
Who scored the projects?
Each proposal was scored by ten representatives from the Washington Association of
Community and Technical Colleges and their commissions for business affairs, instruction and
student services as well as State Board staff. Two college trustees monitored the scoring process.
What’s next?
The WACTC Capital committee will review the scoring results and then recommend additional
new major projects for the 2017-19 capital budget request for State Board consideration at its
May 4-5, 2016 meeting.
Scenario 1
2017-19 SBCTC Capital Pipeline with all requested projects funded in the 2016 Supplemental plus 3 new designs for 2017-19
2015-17 w/ 2016 Supp.
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Type
O&M Fund Swap
Minor Works - Preservation
Repairs
Minor Works - Program
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Remaining 2nd Design
Remaining 2nd Design
Remaining 2nd Design
Remaining 2nd Design
Major Project - Design 17-19
Major Project - Design 17-19
Major Project - Design 17-19
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
College
Project
Statewide
O&M Fund Swap
Statewide
Emergency Repairs and Improvements
Statewide
Minor Repairs
Statewide
Minor Program Improvements
Olympic
College Instruction Center
Centralia
Student Services
Columbia Basin
Social Science Center
Peninsula
Allied Health and Early Childhood Dev Center
South Seattle
Cascade Court
Renton
Automotive Complex Renovation
Edmonds
Science Engineering Technology Bldg
Whatcom
Learning Commons
Big Bend
Professional-Technical Education Center
Spokane
Main Building South Wing Renovation
Highline
Health and Life Sciences
Clover Park
Center for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies
Wenatchee
Wells Hall Replacement
Olympic
Shop Building Renovation
Pierce Fort Steilacoom
Cascade Building Renovation - Phase 3
South Seattle
Automotive Technology
Bates
Medical Mile Health Science Center
Shoreline
Allied Health, Science & Manufacturing
Spokane Falls
Photography and Fine Arts
Clark
North Clark County
Everett
Learning Resource Center
Grays Harbor
Student Services and Instructional Building
North Seattle
Library Building Renovation
Walla Walla
Science & Technology Building Replacement
Cascadia
Center for Science and Technology
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$19,360,000
$36,096,000
$24,200,000
$46,516,000
$32,089,000
$14,505,000
$23,790,000
$28,231,000
$15,250,000
$35,126,000
$31,332,000
$2,040,000
$2,823,000
$2,932,000
$3,144,000
$2,416,000
$823,000
$2,940,000
$1,874,000
$2,898,000
$3,060,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$354,245,000
Biennium
$22,800,000
$42,160,000
$78,256,000
$102,456,000
$148,972,000
$181,061,000
$195,566,000
$219,356,000
$247,587,000
$262,837,000
$297,963,000
$329,295,000
$331,335,000
$334,158,000
$337,090,000
$340,234,000
$342,650,000
$343,473,000
$346,413,000
$348,287,000
$351,185,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
$354,245,000
2017-19
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$21,296,000
$39,325,000
$26,620,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,398,000
$24,876,000
$23,682,000
$33,383,000
$28,350,000
$6,720,000
$28,402,000
$20,206,000
$35,019,990
$33,782,000
$1,607,000
$4,375,000
$3,701,000
$3,870,000
$3,167,911
$2,159,047
$3,280,302
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$397,020,250
Biennium
$22,800,000
$44,096,000
$83,421,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$140,439,000
$165,315,000
$188,997,000
$222,380,000
$250,730,000
$257,450,000
$285,852,000
$306,058,000
$341,077,990
$374,859,990
$376,466,990
$380,841,990
$384,542,990
$388,412,990
$391,580,901
$393,739,949
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
$397,020,250
2019-21
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$23,426,000
$43,258,000
$29,282,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,146,000
$46,578,000
$43,290,000
$44,919,000
$27,895,625
$7,482,203
$37,337,739
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$375,049,567
Biennium
$22,800,000
$46,226,000
$89,484,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$148,912,000
$195,490,000
$238,780,000
$283,699,000
$311,594,625
$319,076,827
$356,414,567
$360,141,567
$363,868,567
$367,595,567
$371,322,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
$375,049,567
2021-23
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$25,769,000
$47,584,000
$32,210,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,685,000
$30,685,000
$30,685,000
$30,685,000
$30,685,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$306,388,000
Biennium
$22,800,000
$48,569,000
$96,153,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$159,048,000
$189,733,000
$220,418,000
$251,103,000
$281,788,000
$285,888,000
$289,988,000
$294,088,000
$298,188,000
$302,288,000
$306,388,000
$306,388,000
$306,388,000
$306,388,000
$306,388,000
$306,388,000
2023-25
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$28,346,000
$52,342,000
$35,431,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$33,754,000
$33,754,000
$33,754,000
$33,754,000
$33,754,000
$33,754,000
$4,510,000
$4,510,000
$4,510,000
$4,510,000
$4,510,000
$341,443,000
Biennium
$22,800,000
$51,146,000
$103,488,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$172,673,000
$206,427,000
$240,181,000
$273,935,000
$307,689,000
$341,443,000
$345,953,000
$350,463,000
$354,973,000
$359,483,000
$363,993,000
TAB 5 Attachment C
Scenario 2
2017-19 SBCTC Capital Pipeline with no new projects funded in the 2016 Supplemental plus 3 new designs for 2017-19
2015-17 As Funded
Order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Type
O&M Fund Swap
Minor Works - Preservation
Repairs
Minor Works - Program
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Construction
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Major Project - Design 15-17
Remaining 2nd Design
Remaining 2nd Design
Remaining 2nd Design
Remaining 2nd Design
Major Project - Design 17-19
Major Project - Design 17-19
Major Project - Design 17-19
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
Major Project
College
Project
Statewide
O&M Fund Swap
Statewide
Emergency Repairs and Improvements
Statewide
Minor Repairs
Statewide
Minor Program Improvements
Olympic
College Instruction Center
Centralia
Student Services
Columbia Basin
Social Science Center
Peninsula
Allied Health and Early Childhood Dev Center
South Seattle
Cascade Court
Renton
Automotive Complex Renovation
Edmonds
Science Engineering Technology Bldg
Whatcom
Learning Commons
Big Bend
Professional-Technical Education Center
Spokane
Main Building South Wing Renovation
Highline
Health and Life Sciences
Clover Park
Center for Advanced Manufacturing Technologies
Wenatchee
Wells Hall Replacement
Olympic
Shop Building Renovation
Pierce Fort Steilacoom
Cascade Building Renovation - Phase 3
South Seattle
Automotive Technology
Bates
Medical Mile Health Science Center
Shoreline
Allied Health, Science & Manufacturing
Spokane Falls
Photography and Fine Arts
Clark
North Clark County
Everett
Learning Resource Center
Grays Harbor
Student Services and Instructional Building
North Seattle
Library Building Renovation
Walla Walla
Science & Technology Building Replacement
Cascadia
Center for Science and Technology
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
TBD
TBD in 2017-19
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
TBD
TBD in 2019-21
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
TBD
TBD in 2021-23
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$19,360,000
$36,096,000
$24,200,000
$46,516,000
$32,089,000
$14,505,000
$23,790,000
$28,231,000
$15,250,000
$0
$0
$2,040,000
$2,823,000
$2,932,000
$3,144,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$273,776,000
Biennium
$22,800,000
$42,160,000
$78,256,000
$102,456,000
$148,972,000
$181,061,000
$195,566,000
$219,356,000
$247,587,000
$262,837,000
$262,837,000
$262,837,000
$264,877,000
$267,700,000
$270,632,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
$273,776,000
2017-19
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$21,296,000
$39,325,000
$26,620,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$35,126,000
$31,332,000
$30,398,000
$24,876,000
$23,682,000
$33,383,000
$2,416,000
$823,000
$2,940,000
$1,874,000
$2,898,000
$3,060,000
$1,607,000
$4,375,000
$3,701,000
$3,870,000
$3,167,911
$2,159,047
$3,280,302
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$325,009,260
Biennium
$22,800,000
$44,096,000
$83,421,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$110,041,000
$145,167,000
$176,499,000
$206,897,000
$231,773,000
$255,455,000
$288,838,000
$291,254,000
$292,077,000
$295,017,000
$296,891,000
$299,789,000
$302,849,000
$304,456,000
$308,831,000
$312,532,000
$316,402,000
$319,569,911
$321,728,959
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
$325,009,260
2019-21
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$23,426,000
$43,258,000
$29,282,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$28,350,000
$6,720,000
$28,402,000
$20,206,000
$35,019,990
$33,782,000
$30,146,000
$46,578,000
$43,290,000
$44,919,000
$27,895,625
$7,482,203
$37,337,739
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$3,727,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$527,529,557
Biennium
$22,800,000
$46,226,000
$89,484,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$118,766,000
$147,116,000
$153,836,000
$182,238,000
$202,444,000
$237,463,990
$271,245,990
$301,391,990
$347,969,990
$391,259,990
$436,178,990
$464,074,615
$471,556,817
$508,894,557
$512,621,557
$516,348,557
$520,075,557
$523,802,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
$527,529,557
2021-23
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$25,769,000
$47,584,000
$32,210,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30,685,000
$30,685,000
$30,685,000
$30,685,000
$30,685,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$4,100,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$306,388,000
Biennium
$22,800,000
$48,569,000
$96,153,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$128,363,000
$159,048,000
$189,733,000
$220,418,000
$251,103,000
$281,788,000
$285,888,000
$289,988,000
$294,088,000
$298,188,000
$302,288,000
$306,388,000
$306,388,000
$306,388,000
$306,388,000
$306,388,000
$306,388,000
2023-25
Total:
New
$22,800,000
$28,346,000
$52,342,000
$35,431,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$33,754,000
$33,754,000
$33,754,000
$33,754,000
$33,754,000
$33,754,000
$4,510,000
$4,510,000
$4,510,000
$4,510,000
$4,510,000
$341,443,000
Biennium
$22,800,000
$51,146,000
$103,488,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$138,919,000
$172,673,000
$206,427,000
$240,181,000
$273,935,000
$307,689,000
$341,443,000
$345,953,000
$350,463,000
$354,973,000
$359,483,000
$363,993,000
TAB 5 Attachment C
Regular Item
March 24, 2016
Tab 6
Math Strategic Plan Update: Math Pathways to Completion
Brief description
In May 2015, the Board approved a strategic plan for math acceleration and success in the community
and technical college system. The plan builds on the college and system level work done to date,
provides recommendations for supporting the work at scale across the system, and identifies metrics to
measuring and evaluating progress. In late summer 2015 Washington was invited to submit a proposal to
be part of Mathematics Pathways to Completion, a project of the Charles A. Dana Center at the
University of Texas; in late fall we were notified that we were selected as one of five states to be
involved in the work (Arkansas, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Washington). This discussion item
provides a brief update on the Mathematics Pathways to Completion project and its connection to the
system math strategic plan.
How does this link to the State Board goals and policy focus
Improvements in pre-college education, especially in mathematics, are critical to addressing all aspects
of SBCTC’s System Direction: meeting the demands for a skilled workforce, increasing student success
and educational attainment for residents, and using innovative approaches to address these needs. These
innovations are helping to close the statewide skills gap, increase degree completion, and invest in
faculty/staff excellence, all important aspects of SBCTC’s Mission Study.
Background information and analysis
The strategic plan work group generally agreed that any recommendations to the system should not
define a “one size fits all” solution but should reinforce good work already underway at the colleges and
build some coherence in the work across the system through a clear focus on goals and principles.
Through their discussions the task force defined a core framework that shaped the final
recommendations in the strategic plan:
•
•
Build on existing and scalable efforts to redesign math pathways, including curriculum and
pedagogy aligned with students’ education and career goals, in order to smooth students’
transition into college-level math and improve their success in college-level math courses.
Launch a statewide initiative that engages every community and technical college in a
coordinated approach to changes in placement, pathways, and instructional shifts that leads to
systemic math achievement improvement efforts.
The University of Texas Dana Center, along with many other leaders and organizations, believes that a
radical overhaul of developmental mathematics education and the college-level mathematics courses
that follow is required for states both to improve student success and completion and to provide students
with a better experience in learning mathematics. The Mathematics Pathways to Completion effort is part
of their overall New Mathways Project, which promotes and supports math pathways through efforts at
the state level to inform policy, at the institutional level through planning tools and resources, and at the
classroom level to support faculty through training and course materials.
Tab 6
The strategic plan task force reviewed the New Mathways Project as part of its work, and the vision and
direction defined in the strategic plan borrows heavily from its core principles:
•
•
•
•
Offering multiple mathematics pathways with relevant and challenging math content aligned
to specific fields of study;
Acceleration through the pre-college math sequence allowing students to complete a collegelevel math course more quickly;
Intentional use of strategies to help students develop skills as learners; and
Utilizing curriculum design and pedagogy based on proven practice.
Washington community and technical colleges are already pursuing many of these strategies; thus we
believe that participating in the Mathematics Pathways to Completion project will allow the system to
pursue these strategies and address the key recommendations of the strategic plan more effectively and
efficiently and in a much more coherent and coordinated way. Through the Mathematics Pathways to
Completion project the Dana Center will support Washington in organizing a state-level math task force
to establish a vision for math pathways in our state. Over the three-year project, the Dana Center will
help Washington make that vision a reality at the institutional level, providing technical assistance and,
in year three of the project, some institution-level funding for implementation. The goal is to
dramatically improve the success of students in developmental and gateway mathematics courses by
implementing math pathways at scale within the state.
Potential questions
•
•
How will the math pathways task force work support and connect to the guided pathways initiative?
How can the Board support the work of the math pathways task force in implementing core elements
of the strategic plan?
Recommendation/preferred result
Board members will have an opportunity to discuss the Mathematics Pathways to Completion project
and its relevance to the Math Strategic Plan and will provide direction to staff on next steps.
Policy Manual Change Yes ☐ No ☒
Prepared by: Bill Moore, director, K-12 partnerships
360-704-4346, bmoore@sbctc.edu
2
Regular Item
March 24, 2016
Tab 7
Enrollment Counting Work Group Update
Brief description
A college system work group has been reviewing current Board policies related to enrollment counting
and reporting, and has developed recommendations to WACTC for revisions to existing policies. The
work group’s goals are to update the policies to reflect changes in state law and instructional practices,
and to support consistent enrollment counting among colleges by clarifying existing policy. The State
Board had an opportunity to discuss the work group’s charge, membership, timeline and early progress
at the Board’s retreat in September 2015. This agenda item provides an update on the work group’s
recommendations as it concludes its work.
How does this link to the State Board goals and policy focus
This effort to review and update enrollment counting policies promotes student achievement and
success. The proposed revisions support effective teaching and learning strategies by integrating basic
skills into a common set of enrollment counting policies, recognizing eLearning and multiple modes of
instruction in the same class, supporting work based learning, and acknowledging the multiple
partnerships and funding sources for classes and students. The proposed recommendations support
implementation of the allocation model approved by the Board in September 2015.
Background information and analysis
In September 2015, the State Board approved recommendations from WACTC for a new allocation
formula. The formula uses college enrollment levels as one of the factors for distributing state operating
funds to the colleges, putting more attention on consistent enrollment counting and reporting among
colleges, especially for basic skills and high demand classes weighted in the formula.
During their discussions on the allocation formula, WACTC asked that a system work group be formed
to work with State Board staff to examine enrollment reporting policies and practices among the
colleges. A work group proposal was approved by WACTC and the work group was formed including
college representatives from instruction, student services, business officers, college research, registrars,
basic skills, workforce education, and State Board staff from the education, finance, and information
technology divisions.
The enrollment counting work group has completed the following tasks:
• Identified issues to examine, including reporting enrollments for state support, credits and FTES
reported for classes, and counting students in classes.
• Developed overall principles for enrollment counting policies.
• Examined federal and regional accreditation requirements and enrollment counting policies in
other states.
• Studied current State Board policies related to enrollment counting, and identified places where
existing policies are unclear, missing or need revision given changes in state policy and
instruction practices over the past 30 years.
• Proposed revisions to enrollment counting policies on fund sources for classes, credit definitions
and student counts.
• Recommendations for implementation activities and timeline.
Tab 7
Principles developed by the Enrollment Counting Work Group:
Policies, guidelines and definitions regarding enrollments:
• Promote consistent and equitable enrollment reporting among colleges
• Are understandable and straightforward so that they can be implemented by colleges without
workarounds
• Are updated and maintained
• Address how enrollments are generated through multiple modes of instruction including, but not
limited to, online and hybrid classes, competency based education, prior learning assessment and
adult basic education.
• Are created with consideration of external regulatory requirements
• Reflect other mission areas and funding mechanisms
• Will result in verifiable enrollments that are reported to SBCTC and audited for accuracy
Draft recommendations:
Overview:
• Proposed enrollment counting policies are divided into fund source, definitions for credits, and
student counts.
• Terms are defined and used consistently across the policy areas.
• Special rules for basic skills are eliminated. Basic skills enrollments are treated like transfer and
workforce education enrollments and integrated into overall enrollment policies.
Fund source:
1. Clarify criteria for determining the funding status of classes and students and include in the
SBCTC Policy Manual.
2. Require state funded classes to have syllabi on file by the census date of the class, beginning July
2017.
3. Seek a change in statute to allow students enrolled in state funded classes and using the
following waivers to count as state-funded enrollments: Long-term unemployed or
underemployed; residents sixty years of age or older; state employees and educational
employees.
4. Additional work is needed to update enrollment policies to reflect ctcLink terminology.
Credit definitions:
1. Federal and accreditation definitions are used as starting point.
2. Definitions assume three hours of student effort per week per credit.
3. Change categories from lecture, lab, worksite and other to Theory, Guided Practice, and FieldBased Experience with revised definitions that reflect current modes of instruction.
4. Combine work-based learning categories with Field-Based Experience.
5. Add instructional modalities including online, hybrid, flipped classrooms and competency based
classes.
2
Tab 7
Student counts:
1. Clarified definitions, including continuous and sequential classes, class census dates, tuition
payment requirements, class drops and withdrawals.
2. Updated credits versus enrollment language.
Implementation:
1. SBCTC will audit college enrollments for consistency with enrollment rules.
2. New policies will be effective Summer quarter 2017, if approved by the Board.
3. Training on enrollment policies will be provided to college staff in 2016-17.
4. Annual trainings will be provided in subsequent years.
The work group is meeting March 17, and is on track to complete its recommendations for WACTC
consideration at their March and April meetings, with recommendations to the State Board in May or
June.
Potential questions
•
•
Are Board members comfortable with the approach to potential revisions to Board policy on
enrollment counting?
Will the potential revisions improve consistency among colleges in enrollment counting and
reporting?
Recommendation/preferred result
Board members will have an opportunity to preview draft recommendations on enrollment counting
policies. Future Board action is required to adopt any changes to enrollment counting policies,
anticipated for the May or June 2016 Board meeting.
Policy Manual Change Yes ☒ No ☐
Prepared by: Jan Yoshiwara, deputy executive director, education services division
360 704-4353, jyoshiwara@sbctc.edu
3
Action Item (Resolution 16-03-08)
March 24, 2016
Tab 8
Consideration of Accessible Technology Policy
Brief description
This policy is intended to support the community and technical colleges in Washington State (CTC) in
their obligation to provide equal, effective and meaningful access to educational technology for
individuals with disabilities. All colleges are mandated to comply with the requirements of the Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Core Services state law, RCW
28B.10.912 and the Washington State Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60. Beyond these legal
obligations, however, the SBCTC and the colleges seek to create environments that allow for the full
participation of their diverse communities. Accessibility is a system-wide responsibility that is best
carried out through system-level coordination and collaboration.
How does this link to the State Board goals and policy focus
The Accessible Technology Policy and its subsequent implementation and monitoring will contribute to
three State Board goals:
•
•
•
Promoting student achievement and success by increasing the success of students with
disabilities and the success of students overall according to universal design for learning
principles;
Increasing access to post-secondary education by removing barriers for students with
disabilities;
Building on the system’s strengths and successes by leveraging the expertise of the SBCTC
Information Technology Office and the Department of eLearning as well as that of accessible
technology experts and advocates on CTC campuses through groups such as the eLearning
Council.
Background information and analysis
While State Board Policy 3.20.30 addresses access for students with disabilities and points to the
relevant RCWs (28B.10.910 through 28B.10.918), it does not address equal access in the area of
technologies used by the system. The policy under consideration was developed by a cross-functional,
system-wide task force in 2013-2014 to address this lack. Since then, it has been reviewed and endorsed
by system entities including the Disability Student Services Council, the Instruction Commission, the
Student Services Commission, and most recently, WACTC.
Nationally, lawsuits on the grounds of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and
penalties levied on systems and colleges as a result of non-compliance in policy and deed have been
severe and costly. Acknowledging publicly our system's obligation to provide access for all through
accessible design and technologies is an important step in addressing the concerns of advocates for
groups representing disabled persons and will provide structure and direction for efforts already
underway at many colleges. By adopting the policy, the Board will be expressing our system's
commitment to creating effective and integrated user experiences for all consumers of our technologies,
and will provide a means to make current college and system efforts in accessibility and technology
more visible.
Tab 8
Support for making technology accessible is not only a disability issue, as important as that is, but a
benefit to all users in our system. Implementation of this policy and the professional development
opportunities and guidelines for technology purchasing and deployment to be developed in this process
will result in increased understanding and usability across the college system.
Policy implementation will be provided by a group created for this purpose, the Committee for
Accessible Technology Oversight (CATO). CATO will have representation from the following Councils
and Commissions: Disability Student Services, eLearning, Library Leadership, Public Information,
Instruction, Student Services, and Business Affairs. Staffing for CATO will be provided by SBCTC.
CATO will first focus on the development of standards documents, guidelines for auditing accessibility,
guidelines for improved awareness of accessibility concerns in technology purchasing and development
of professional development opportunities for colleges' staff and faculty in the area of inclusive design
with technology. It is difficult to assess the budgetary impact of the policy as a) its primary effect is to
re-state an obligation for compliance with current law; b) fiscal impacts will vary widely among colleges
depending on their yet-to-be-assessed level of compliance. Techniques for conducting these assessments
will be made available in the implementation process.
Potential questions
•
•
•
What are the potential fiscal impacts of the policy?
How will the policy be implemented and what is the role of SBCTC staff in assisting colleges with
the implementation and its consequences?
Is the policy likely to make colleges less vulnerable to potential Office of Civil Rights or civil legal
action?
Recommendation/preferred result
Staff recommends adoption of Resolution 16-03-08, the Accessible Technology Policy (Attachment A)
and approval to proceed with system-wide implementation.
Policy Manual Change Yes ☒ No ☐
Prepared by: Joe Holliday, director of student services, jholliday@sbctc.edu, 360-704-4334
Mark Jenkins, director of eLearning, mjenkins@sbctc.edu, 360-704-4364
2
Tab 8
Attachment A
Accessible Technology Policy:
Vision, Mission, Policy Statement & Recommendations for Adoption
Accessible Technology Task Force, May 2014
Overview
This policy is established to support the community and technical colleges in Washington
State (CTC) in their obligation to provide equal, effective, and meaningful access to the
benefits of technology for individuals with disabilities. All CTCs are mandated to comply with
the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, Core Services legislation, RCW 28B.10.912 and the Washington State Law Against
Discrimination, RCW 49.60 and any future legal mandates related to providing equal access
to individuals with disabilities. Beyond these legal obligations, however, the SBCTC and its
member colleges seek to create environments that allow for the full participation of their
diverse communities.
In addition, it is recognized that accessibility is a system-wide responsibility and everyone
within the system is responsible for ensuring access. Accessibility is to be addressed at the
statewide system level, in institutions and by individuals.
The CTC community’s commitment to ensure access to electronic and information
technology (EIT) will be met through the application of accessibility standards, guidelines,
training, and a common understanding of these concepts as specified in the Department of
Education’s June 29, 2010 on Electronic Book Readers. Click here to access the Dear
Colleague letter.
This document applies to all current and emerging technologies throughout the Washington
Community and Technical College system.
Definition
The use of the term “accessibility” in this policy refers to the objective that everyone within
the Washington State Community & Technical College system will have equally effective and
equally integrated access to the benefits. “Effective” and “integrated” refer to our
commitment to meet or exceed our legal obligations to provide an equivalent user
experience in any and all cases where that is possible and reasonable.
Vision
Washington’s community and technical colleges are leaders in supporting (or addressing?)
accessibility and ensuring that everyone within the SBCTC community has equally effective
and integrated access to all the benefits of the college system. This includes the ability for
students and members of the college community to access and use current, emerging, and
future technologies.
Tab 8
Attachment A
Mission
The SBCTC is dedicated to supporting faculty, staff and administrators charged with all
aspects of EIT access. This includes the procurement, adoption and implementation of new
and emerging educational technologies. We support our entire community as they adjust
and adapt to changes in technologies to support our students’ learning experiences and the
educational community as a whole.
Guidelines & Principles
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Our outcome is based on input from all relevant stakeholders, including but not
limited to disability services coordinators and students.
All outcomes promote accessible design solutions as preferable to accommodations
Compliance is a by-product of accessibility policy, not a primary goal.
We stress Universal Design for Learners in settings where it most appropriate.
Access is a discovery process on a case by case basis, not an ad hoc, reactive
process.
Accessibility is a responsive policy environment driven by changes in demographics,
technologies, and legal requirements.
Policy, funding and practice must assist and support everyone involved in the
acquisition, development and use of learning technologies.
Evolving practices and conversations about accessibility should be central to
instruction and student service process and delivery.
Accessibility is an evolving discipline of practice that requires working together to
create a culture, philosophy and community of accessibility.
Policy Statement
Washington State Community & Technical colleges shall provide appropriate, effective, and
integrated access to technology for students, employees and external community members.
This policy applies to the procurement, development and implementation of instructional,
administrative or communications technologies and content. Further, the policy applies to
both current and emerging technologies, including both hardware and software, in use or
being evaluated for purchase or adoption throughout the Community and Technical college
system. The policy encompasses but is not limited to college websites, learning
management tools, student information systems, training materials, instructional materials
and assessment tools.
Recommendations
1. SBCTC supports the new policy on accessible technology;
2. SBCTC & WACTC review and update existing policies on accessibility;
3. Given that legal analyses have identified that individuals, colleges, and the system
can be held liable for failures to provide access, we recommend that the SBCTC
ratifies this document and ensures that enforcement implementation occurs through
a statewide implementation work group with representatives from BAC, eLearning,
DSSC, WSSSC, IC, PIC, IT etc. to develop guidelines.
Tab 8
Attachment A
4. eLearning Council and individual colleges will provide professional development to
staff/faculty so that appropriate access is provided to all users of technology.
5. Quarterly updates from a designated state group advise all SBCTC councils and
commissions on matters of accessibility and technology. This group will support the
creation of annual work plans and monitor progress on their achievement. The same
group will be responsible for making recommendations, establishing guidelines and
disseminating best practices for technology accessibility.
6. SBCTC will establish a cross-council online presence to capture recommendations,
resources and educational materials.
Tab 8
Attachment A
U.S.
U.S.
Department of Department of
Justice
Education
Civil Rights Division
Office of Civil Rights
June 29, 2010
Dear College or University President:
We write to express concern on the part of the Department of Justice and the
Department of Education that colleges and universities are using electronic book
readers that are not accessible to students who are blind or have low vision and to seek
your help in ensuring that this emerging technology is used in classroom settings in a
manner that is permissible under federal law. A serious problem with some of these
devices is that they lack an accessible text-to-speech function. Requiring use of an
emerging technology in a classroom environment when the technology is inaccessible
to an entire population of individuals with disabilities–individuals with visual disabilities–
is discrimination prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) unless those individuals are
provided accommodations or modifications that permit them to receive all the
educational benefits provided by the technology in an equally effective and equally
integrated manner.
The Departments of Justice and Education share responsibility for protecting the rights
of college and university students with disabilities. The Department of Justice is
responsible for enforcement and implementation of title III of the ADA, which covers
private colleges and universities, and the Departments of Justice and Education both
have enforcement authority under title II of the ADA, which covers public universities. In
addition, the Department of Education enforces Section 504 with respect to public and
private colleges and universities that receive federal financial assistance from the
Department of Education. As discussed below, the general requirements of Section
504 and the ADA reach equipment and technological devices when they are used by
Tab 8
Attachment A
public entities or places of public accommodation as part of their programs, services,
activities, goods, advantages, privileges, or accommodations.
Under title III, individuals with disabilities, including students with visual impairments,
may not be discriminated against in the full and equal enjoyment of all of the goods and
services of private colleges and universities; they must receive an equal opportunity to
participate in and benefit from these goods and services; and, they must not be
provided different or separate goods or services unless doing so is necessary to ensure
that access to the goods and services is equally as effective as that provided to
others.1 Under title II, qualified individuals with disabilities may not be excluded from
participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of, nor
subjected to discrimination by, public universities and colleges.2 Both title II and Section
504 prohibit colleges and universities from affording individuals with disabilities with an
opportunity to participate in or benefit from college and university aids, benefits, and
services that is unequal to the opportunity afforded others.3 Similarly, individuals with
disabilities must be provided with aids, benefits, or services that provide an equal
opportunity to achieve the same result or the same level of achievement as others.4 A
college or university may provide an individual with a disability, or a class of individuals
with disabilities, with a different or separate aid, benefit, or service only if doing so is
necessary to ensure that the aid, benefit, or service is as effective as that provided to
others.5
The Department of Justice recently entered into settlement agreements with colleges
and universities that used the Kindle DX, an inaccessible, electronic book reader, in the
classroom as part of a pilot study with Amazon.com, Inc. In summary, the universities
agreed not to purchase, require, or recommend use of the Kindle DX, or any other
dedicated electronic book reader, unless or until the device is fully accessible to
individuals who are blind or have low vision, or the universities provide reasonable
accommodation or modification so that a student can acquire the same information,
engage in the same interactions, and enjoy the same services as sighted students with
substantially equivalent ease of use. The texts of these agreements may be viewed on
the Department of Justice's ADA Web site, http://www.ada.gov/. (To find these
settlements on http://www.ada.gov/, search for "Kindle.") Consistent with the relief
obtained by the Department of Justice in those matters, the Department of Education
has also resolved similar complaints against colleges and universities.
Tab 8
Attachment A
As officials of the agencies charged with enforcement and interpretation of the ADA and
Section 504, we ask that you take steps to ensure that your college or university refrains
from requiring the use of any electronic book reader, or other similar technology, in a
teaching or classroom environment as long as the device remains inaccessible to
individuals who are blind or have low vision. It is unacceptable for universities to use
emerging technology without insisting that this technology be accessible to all students.
Congress found when enacting the ADA that individuals with disabilities were uniquely
disadvantaged in American society in critical areas such as education.6 Providing
individuals with disabilities full and equal access to educational opportunities is as
essential today as it was when the ADA was passed. In a Proclamation for National
Disability Employment Awareness Month, President Obama underscored the need to
"strengthen and expand the educational opportunities for individuals with disabilities,"
noting that, "[i]f we are to build a world free from unnecessary barriers . . .we must
ensure that every American receives an education that prepares him or her for future
success." http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamationnational-disability-employment-awareness-month (September 30, 2009) (emphasis
added).
Technology is the hallmark of the future, and technological competency is essential to
preparing all students for future success. Emerging technologies are an educational
resource that enhances the experience for everyone, and perhaps especially for
students with disabilities. Technological innovations have opened a virtual world of
commerce, information, and education to many individuals with disabilities for whom
access to the physical world remains challenging. Ensuring equal access to emerging
technology in university and college classrooms is a means to the goal of full integration
and equal educational opportunity for this nation's students with disabilities. With
technological advances, procuring electronic book readers that are accessible should
be neither costly nor difficult.
We would like to work with you to ensure that America's technological advances are
used for the benefit of all students. The Department of Justice operates a toll-free,
technical assistance line to answer questions with regard to the requirements of federal
laws protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities. For technical assistance,
please call (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY). Specialists are available
Monday through Friday from 9:30 AM until 5:30 PM (ET) except for Thursday, when the
Tab 8
Attachment A
hours are 12:30 PM until 5:30 PM. These specialists have been trained specifically to
address questions regarding accessible electronic book readers. Colleges, universities,
and other stakeholders can also contact the Department of Education's Office for Civil
Rights for technical assistance by going to OCR's Web site at
http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm.
We appreciate your consideration of this essential educational issue and look forward to
working with you to ensure that our nation's colleges and universities are fully
accessible to individuals with disabilities.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Perez
Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice
Russlynn Ali Assistant
Secretary for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education
1 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(a); 28 C.F.R. 36.202(a); and 28 § C.F.R. 36.202(c) (2009).
2 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a) (2009).
3 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(ii) and 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(ii) (2009).
4 Cf. 28 C.F.R.§ 35.130(b)(1)(iii) and 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(iii) (2009).
5 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(iv) and 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1)(iv) (2009).
6 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a) (1990).
Department of Education Page on Electronic Book Readers
Cases & Matters by ADA Title Coverage | Legal Documents by Type & Date | ADA
Home Page
June 29, 2010
Tab 8
State of Washington
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
Resolution 16-03-08
A resolution relating to a policy supporting accessible technology
WHEREAS, The State Board and Washington community and technical colleges seek to create learning
environments, management systems and public information sources that allow for the full participation
of their diverse communities of staff, faculty, students and other stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, The Accessible Technology Policy and the practices required for its full implementation
will contribute to State Board goals for student access and achievement by removing barriers for
students, faculty and staff with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, such a policy will assist colleges to comply with state and federal laws mandating equal,
effective and meaningful access to the benefits of technology;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
approves the recommended Accessible Technology Policy and authorizes the formation of a systemwide committee to assist in its implementation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
authorizes the executive director to make adjustments to this action, including any necessary changes to
the State Board’s Policy Manual, as necessary, for actions taken by the governor, Legislature, data
corrections, externally imposed restrictions or guidelines, uniform accounting and reporting
requirements, and unanticipated changes in state or federal law.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED on March 24, 2016.
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Marty Brown, secretary
__________________________________
Shaunta Hyde, chair
Regular Item
March 24, 2016
Tab 9
Legislative update
Brief description
The State Board will be briefed on the status of the 2016 legislative session including priority legislation
and progress toward reaching key priorities for the community and technical college (CTC) system.
How does this link to the State Board goals and policy focus
Creating a robust advocacy plan that identifies targeted, key messages throughout the legislative session
and supports the 2016 SBCTC legislative agenda approved by the board in December, 2015:
• Basic Education for Adults: Legislative policy request (HB 2329 & SB 6161)
o About 650,000 to 700,000 Washington adults need basic skills to pursue college for
living-wage jobs and meet employers’ needs. SBCTC requests this population be added
to the caseload forecast to develop stable funding for adult basic education in the future.
o Did not pass the Legislature
• Corrections Education: Legislative policy request (HB 2619 & SB 6260)
o National research shows that prison education reduces recidivism rates and frees public
funds for other important priorities. A statutory change is needed to allow the use of
existing state funds for academic degree programs within corrections institutions.
o Did not pass the Legislature
• Sustainable Operating Budget:
o Critical compensation adjustment: $10.9 million
 The 2015-17 operating budget provided compensation increases for college staff,
but the budget funded only 83 percent of the impact to college budgets. Full
compensation funding would protect funds already budgeted for student programs
and services.
 Not included in the supplemental operating budget
o Adjust for tuition reduction in applied baccalaureate programs: $1.98 million
 The 2015-17 operating budget accounts for lost tuition revenue for lower-division
coursework, but the offset does not fully cover lost revenue in applied bachelor’s
degree programs. An adequate backfill would support these successful, in-demand
workforce degrees.
 Senate budget included $865,000 for tuition backfill (House = $0)
• Supplemental Capital Request:
o $82.6 million supplemental capital budget request
 The 2015-17 capital budget lacks funding for eight priority capital projects at the
following colleges: Edmonds, Wenatchee, Olympic, Pierce Fort Steilacoom,
Whatcom, South Seattle, Bates and Shoreline. This would advance our ten-year
capital plan and protect students from learning in dilapidated or inadequate
buildings.
 House capital budget funds capital construction projects at Edmonds and
Whatcom (Senate does not)
• Funding for State Board Priorities
o MESA Expansion
 $450,000 in both legislative budgets
o Opportunity Grants
 Not included in legislative budgets
Tab 9
•
•
o Faculty Increments
 Not included in legislative budgets
o Advising and Career Planning
 Not included in legislative budgets
o WASAC request for a fully funded State Need Grant
 Not included in legislative budgets
Expanded Bachelor Degrees
o SB 5928 – authorizes Bellevue College to offer a BS degree in Computer Science
Moore vs. HCA Settlement
o Of the $80 million dollar settlement, the legislative budgets assign $13.41 million to the
CTC system.
 Combine this $13.41 million reduction for the remainder of this fiscal year with
the nearly $13 million shortfalls created from inadequate backfills to tuition
reductions and compensation increases, and our colleges now face a $26.29
million deficit for the 2015-2017 biennium.
Background information and analysis
To assist with meeting legislative goals adopted by the CTC system, a coordinated advocacy plan has
been launched. In addition, there are multiple ways in which the CTC system is impacting legislative
issues.
•
•
•
Testimony: CTC representatives have presented before legislative committees multiple times
regarding issues such as the Governor’s budget proposals, an overview of the CTC system and
legislative priorities, dual credit, tuition, college affordability, financial aid and STEM education.
Meetings: In addition to the executive director and legislative director, college representatives
and CTC students have been meeting with legislators to discuss the system’s legislative priorities
and promoting the value of a two-year college education as a critical step in strengthening the
state’s economy and workforce.
Monitoring legislation: SBCTC Government Relations and policy staff are monitoring a
number of bills that, if passed, would impact our colleges and service delivery in a variety of
ways.
Potential questions
•
Does the State Board have feedback or questions about progress towards meeting system wide
legislative goals?
Recommendation/preferred result
•
Interim planning should focus on creating an efficient and effective communication strategy to the
legislature.
Policy Manual Change Yes ☐ No ☒
Prepared by: Arlen Harris, legislative director
360-704-4394, aharris@sbctc.edu
2